4 ms·

>I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accoun

>I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. >if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers that allow them to get up next to the line without crossing it. >And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. >Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. Freedom of speech still means you are held to that speech when you sign it as a contract. Trying to stretch contract laws as being related to freedom of speech is showing an extreme attempt to stretch. >a simplistic It has far more thought to it than the notion that free speech means contract law is void or that discrimination is legalized. >extremist Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. >that doesn't survive contact with the real world Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle, no right you have will protect you from someone or something that wants your resources. >You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech Yes, for the issues that those in power don't reall care about. Those are the bread and circus; hope we enjoy it. >pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that. Appeal to popularity? All goverments also engage in rights violations that we would not stand to defend.

vacri 11y ago
>All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. >if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. > Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. > Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream. > Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world. > Appeal to popularity? No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up. You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. I was saying that under current law, I've been called far worse (and by people who were serious and not just demostrating their point). >I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. Someone in the HOA could already do that. I could potentially sue, but that could also make things worse depending upon the damage done. Even falsely accusing someone of a crime and having them arrested is often not punished except in the case of a repeat offender. >Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. They would not be penalized on that point. It would just add further evidence to a discrimination suit, and if that is the only evidence the suit actually provided, then the suit should fail. Namely, such a statement would be important in showing if a person would have motive, but motive alone is not sufficient to convict someone for discrimination. >We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured Depending upon what you mean by murder and torture, we may have far less of such a right than freedom of speech. All laws are enforced at gunpoint proxy (even if the penalty for breaking some law isn't immediately enforced at gunpoint, there is a chain of consequences that will eventually lead to such). And solitary confinement sounds like torture to me. >No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. In the areas that are pre-approved. You think the government really cares about all the fighting about sexism or gay rights? Even terrorism doesn't matter outside of being the trojan horse for draconian laws. >It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear. Chillings effects have already begun to be noticed.

vacri 11y ago

>All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. >if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. > Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. > Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream. > Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world. > Appeal to popularity? No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up. You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. I was saying that under current law, I've been called far worse (and by people who were serious and not just demostrating their point). >I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. Someone in the HOA could already do that. I could potentially sue, but that could also make things worse depending upon the damage done. Even falsely accusing someone of a crime and having them arrested is often not punished except in the case of a repeat offender. >Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. They would not be penalized on that point. It would just add further evidence to a discrimination suit, and if that is the only evidence the suit actually provided, then the suit should fail. Namely, such a statement would be important in showing if a person would have motive, but motive alone is not sufficient to convict someone for discrimination. >We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured Depending upon what you mean by murder and torture, we may have far less of such a right than freedom of speech. All laws are enforced at gunpoint proxy (even if the penalty for breaking some law isn't immediately enforced at gunpoint, there is a chain of consequences that will eventually lead to such). And solitary confinement sounds like torture to me. >No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. In the areas that are pre-approved. You think the government really cares about all the fighting about sexism or gay rights? Even terrorism doesn't matter outside of being the trojan horse for draconian laws. >It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear. Chillings effects have already begun to be noticed.