Issues with Islam - Armor Games Community

99	33897

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 22, '12 12:39pm UTC

A large proportion of the other advanced democracies in the world combine a commitment to free speech with rules prohibiting hate speech. Isn't it worth considering how they do this? And why? No one is burning the constitution here. We're just trying to think about it.

It should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of literally no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?

We juxtapose the freedom of speech with the freedom to maintain one's dignity, a person's basic social status, his or her being treated as an ordinary member of society in good standing, his or her being included in the ordinary business of society.

In America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.

In parts of Miami some restaurant signs used to say, 'Jews and dogs not welcome here.' A legal prohibition on such signs would be aimed at securing the inclusiveness of the social environment against such attempts to undermine it.

I have a HUGE problem with this. I would avoid such shops and boycott them. I would encourage others to boycott such places. If people don't care, or if they agree with the signs, then there's nothing I can do. I believe businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. If they want to be racist, they can be racist. I'm completely against it, and I'll do whatever is in my power to peacefully ruin them, but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).

I'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech.

At the cost of people suffering from hate speech? This is all noble and all, except for the people who are subject to hate speech.

Making people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion.

Indeed, the legal ban is itself a way of speaking out against it.

-JEREMY WALDRON (Opinion Pages)

Banning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech

is like

pulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.

It shouldn't be forbidden to amke jokes about others and show humour etc, it is ok for someone to make a joke about Islam or whatever when among friends or something like that; but it is not ok to publicly spread hate and lies about others; this is definitely going far off the limit of free speech, and even if the government does nothing, the people should be able to accuse him of inciting hate and insulting others religion; and he should be trialed for this as he deserves. I don't know about you, but if this still goes under freedom of speech, it's closer to anarchy than anything I know.

Religion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)

Hate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.

[quote] A large proportion of the other advanced democracies in the world combine a commitment to free speech with rules prohibiting hate speech. Isn't it worth considering how they do this? And why? No one is burning the constitution here. We're just trying to think about it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of [i]literally[/i] no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?\r\n\r\n[quote]We juxtapose the freedom of speech with the freedom to maintain one's dignity, a person's basic social status, his or her being treated as an ordinary member of society in good standing, his or her being included in the ordinary business of society.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.\r\n\r\n[quote]In parts of Miami some restaurant signs used to say, 'Jews and dogs not welcome here.' A legal prohibition on such signs would be aimed at securing the inclusiveness of the social environment against such attempts to undermine it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI have a HUGE problem with this. I would avoid such shops and boycott them. I would encourage others to boycott such places. If people don't care, or if they agree with the signs, then there's nothing I can do. I believe businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. If they want to be racist, they can be racist. I'm completely against it, and I'll do whatever is in my power to peacefully ruin them, but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).\r\n\r\nI'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech. \r\n\r\n[quote]At the cost of people suffering from hate speech? This is all noble and all, except for the people who are subject to hate speech. [/quote]\r\n\r\nMaking people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion. \r\n\r\n[quote] Indeed, the legal ban is itself a way of speaking out against it. [/quote]\r\n-JEREMY WALDRON (Opinion Pages)\r\n\r\nBanning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech\r\n\r\nis like\r\n\r\npulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.\r\n\r\n[quote]It shouldn't be forbidden to amke jokes about others and show humour etc, it is ok for someone to make a joke about Islam or whatever when among friends or something like that; but it is not ok to publicly spread hate and lies about others; this is definitely going far off the limit of free speech, and even if the government does nothing, the people should be able to accuse him of inciting hate and insulting others religion; and he should be trialed for this as he deserves. I don't know about you, but if this still goes under freedom of speech, it's closer to anarchy than anything I know.[/quote]\r\n\r\nReligion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)\r\n\r\nHate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted September 22, '12 1:11pm UTC

It should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of literally no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?

We have very different value systems. In fact, most of the world has a different one from you guys. In our eyes, yes offending someone is offensive for lack of a better word, and at such a level is a crime.

In America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.

Racism is still alive in this world. A BBC survey showed ethnic minority applicants still face major discrimination in the jobs market CVs from six fictitious candidates - who were given traditionally white, black African or Muslim names - were sent to 50 firms by Radio Five Live. White 'candidates' were far more likely to be given an interview than similarly qualified black or Asian 'names'. The employers targeted by the undercover survey were selected at random from newspaper adverts and recruitment websites. Letters from the 'black' candidates, Abu Olasemi and Yinka Olatunde, had a 13% success rate.

From 1981 to 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against tens of thousands of African American farmers, denying loans provided to white farmers in similar circumstances. The discrimination was the subject of the Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit brought by members of the National Black Farmers Association, which resulted in two settlement agreements of $1.25 billion in 1999 and of $1.15 billion in 2009.

but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).

I'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech.

The two are exclusive at many times. White supremists claim that whites are superior and should have certain privileges. This clashes with the right of equality for all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. They clash. Racism cannot be fought with soft means, it needs to be tackled head on by the government. The government exists to protect all people regardless of race.

Religion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)

Hate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.

Religion doesn't deserve to be insulted. Frankly, such statements are disgusting. Religion, if it doesn't espouse violence, doesn't need to be shot down. Yes, most texts have some reference to smoting infidels, yet if this is not taught or espoused, as most congregations do not teach as such, than they do not deserve to be slurred in public.

Making people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion.

Tell that to the blacks in the 1960s. Or the Chinese in Malaysia today. Or just about in every continent. That the government should allow such racism to exist and not step in to protect citizens, because people can be relied on to sensibly combat it.

Banning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech

is like

pulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.

Saying that you're better because of skin colour, and therefore others shouldn't deserve to get a job isn't a matter of debate anymore, but law and equality.

[quote]It should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of literally no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe have very different value systems. In fact, most of the world has a different one from you guys. In our eyes, yes offending someone is offensive for lack of a better word, and at such a level is a crime. \r\n\r\n[quote]In America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.[/quote]\r\n\r\nRacism is still alive in this world. A BBC survey showed ethnic minority applicants still face major discrimination in the jobs market CVs from six fictitious candidates - who were given traditionally white, black African or Muslim names - were sent to 50 firms by Radio Five Live. White 'candidates' were far more likely to be given an interview than similarly qualified black or Asian 'names'. The employers targeted by the undercover survey were selected at random from newspaper adverts and recruitment websites. Letters from the 'black' candidates, Abu Olasemi and Yinka Olatunde, had a 13% success rate.\r\n\r\nFrom 1981 to 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against tens of thousands of African American farmers, denying loans provided to white farmers in similar circumstances. The discrimination was the subject of the Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit brought by members of the National Black Farmers Association, which resulted in two settlement agreements of $1.25 billion in 1999 and of $1.15 billion in 2009.\r\n\r\n[quote]but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).\r\n\r\nI'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe two are exclusive at many times. White supremists claim that whites are superior and should have certain privileges. This clashes with the right of equality for all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. They clash. Racism cannot be fought with soft means, it needs to be tackled head on by the government. The government exists to protect all people regardless of race.\r\n\r\n[quote]Religion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)\r\n\r\nHate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.[/quote]\r\n\r\nReligion doesn't deserve to be insulted. Frankly, such statements are disgusting. Religion, if it doesn't espouse violence, doesn't need to be shot down. Yes, most texts have some reference to smoting infidels, yet if this is not taught or espoused, as most congregations do not teach as such, than they do not deserve to be slurred in public. \r\n\r\n[quote]Making people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTell that to the blacks in the 1960s. Or the Chinese in Malaysia today. Or just about in every continent. That the government should allow such racism to exist and not step in to protect citizens, because people can be relied on to sensibly combat it.\r\n\r\n[quote]Banning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech\r\n\r\nis like\r\n\r\npulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSaying that you're better because of skin colour, and therefore others shouldn't deserve to get a job isn't a matter of debate anymore, but law and equality.

offline

Avorne

3,085 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '12 1:46pm UTC

I could very well say that anyone who practices Islam should be locked up or sent to rehabilitation camps. Do I? No, because I believe both in the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, people have the right to say and practice what they like. Equally though, this means that other people have just as much right to criticize and disagree with the views of others, even if their disagreement is viewed as 'insulting' it's still that persons opinion. Once you start saying "you're free to say/believe as you want... as long as it's not X" you're encroaching upon and eroding that freedom. Anyone should be allowed to shout as loudly as they like about their views but nobody should be allowed to get away with physical violence because somebody disagrees with them.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 22, '12 2:59pm UTC

Regardless, the racism that does exist in America has less to do with free speech and exists at a more secretive level.

White supremists claim that whites are superior and should have certain privileges. This clashes with the right of equality for all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution.

They have the right to preach ideas that differ from the constitution. They have the right to criticize the constitution. I believe people should have their rights, and speak against rights as well (obviously I'll disagree with them though).

Racism cannot be fought with soft means, it needs to be tackled head on by the government. The government exists to protect all people regardless of race.

The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.

Religion doesn't deserve to be insulted

Ha! Doesn't it? A law in which religion isn't insulted would be horrible. Religion is insulted because many people strongly believe that religion is completely irrational, and science tends to agree.

What ratio of truth and insult would be acceptable? Would it be okay to be insulting if what you said is true? Or should we be forced not to use insults at all when discussion such matter? Should you be allowed to have a TV show in which you refer to the bible as the "mother ****ing bible" where you toss various bibles over your shoulder? Should you be allowed to create videos making fun of various versus in the bible and post them on the internet? We must then take into consideration the fact that everyone is different and will express their opinions differently. Some people may take a more "respectful" approach to debating religion, whereas others freely insult it as they debate, undermining the intelligence of those they're debating with.

The reason Christians get so much flack for parts of the bible that aren't taught is because Christians often claim to believe every word of the bible to be fact, even if they don't act like it. It's a way to show how nutty religion is.

But then, must you avoid making fun of the violent, untaught, parts of the bible merely because someone might be offended?

Where is the line drawn? Can you expect people to easily distinguish this line?

Tell that to the blacks in the 1960s. Or the Chinese in Malaysia today. Or just about in every continent. That the government should allow such racism to exist and not step in to protect citizens, because people can be relied on to sensibly combat it.

By the time government steps in, the people will already be on their way to abolishing racism. However, I must state that it's more than just hate speech that causes problems, it's culture. Culture is what has to change, and I believe culture will change before the government decides to step in.

Saying that you're better because of skin colour, and therefore others shouldn't deserve to get a job isn't a matter of debate anymore, but law and equality.

It is a matter of debate. It's not a matter of law and equality because merely saying something doesn't make it true.

You can say you're superior to every other race, but unless you act on it, there isn't a problem. Now, racist people who would want to speak out are likely going to act racist to a certain degree, but that's something that often can't be mandated.

When racist people speak out, it isn't the fact they're offending anyone that should be scary, it's the fact they might sway others to act racist that's fearsome. But we live in an age where such speech is heavily looked down upon. We live in a society where people naturally stand up for others.

I believe one of the biggest discriminatory problems in the US today is against homosexuals. It's still considered a controversial topic, so much of what's said isn't considered "hate speech". Someday, it likely will be deemed as such. But by the time the words spoken against gays today is considered "hate speech", it will already be widely accepted.

The government could help vanquish all this hate speech against homosexuals by outlawing said hate speeches. But that's not going to happen until after the hate speeches die down, and after homosexuality moves past being a controversial topic, to a regular part of our lives. If the government really wanted to help suffocate all the hate speeches spoken against homosexuals, they could legalize gay marriage. After gays are allowed to get married and they don't destroy the world, people will move on and less will be focused on speaking out against homosexuality.

Regardless, the racism that does exist in America has less to do with free speech and exists at a more secretive level.\r\n\r\n[quote]White supremists claim that whites are superior and should have certain privileges. This clashes with the right of equality for all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey have the right to preach ideas that differ from the constitution. They have the right to criticize the constitution. I believe people should have their rights, and speak against rights as well (obviously I'll disagree with them though).\r\n\r\n[quote]Racism cannot be fought with soft means, it needs to be tackled head on by the government. The government exists to protect all people regardless of race.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.\r\n\r\n[quote]Religion doesn't deserve to be insulted[/quote]\r\n\r\nHa! Doesn't it? A law in which religion isn't insulted would be horrible. Religion is insulted because many people strongly believe that religion is completely irrational, and science tends to agree.\r\n\r\nWhat ratio of truth and insult would be acceptable? Would it be okay to be insulting if what you said is true? Or should we be forced not to use insults at all when discussion such matter? Should you be allowed to have a TV show in which you refer to the bible as the "mother ****ing bible" where you toss various bibles over your shoulder? Should you be allowed to create videos making fun of various versus in the bible and post them on the internet? We must then take into consideration the fact that everyone is different and will express their opinions differently. Some people may take a more "respectful" approach to debating religion, whereas others freely insult it as they debate, undermining the intelligence of those they're debating with.\r\n\r\nThe reason Christians get so much flack for parts of the bible that aren't taught is because Christians often claim to believe every word of the bible to be fact, even if they don't act like it. It's a way to show how nutty religion is.\r\n\r\nBut then, must you avoid making fun of the violent, untaught, parts of the bible merely because someone might be offended?\r\n\r\nWhere is the line drawn? Can you expect people to easily distinguish this line?\r\n\r\n[quote]Tell that to the blacks in the 1960s. Or the Chinese in Malaysia today. Or just about in every continent. That the government should allow such racism to exist and not step in to protect citizens, because people can be relied on to sensibly combat it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBy the time government steps in, the people will already be on their way to abolishing racism. However, I must state that it's more than just hate speech that causes problems, it's culture. Culture is what has to change, and I believe culture will change before the government decides to step in.\r\n\r\n[quote]Saying that you're better because of skin colour, and therefore others shouldn't deserve to get a job isn't a matter of debate anymore, but law and equality.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is a matter of debate. It's not a matter of law and equality because merely saying something doesn't make it true.\r\n\r\nYou can say you're superior to every other race, but unless you act on it, there isn't a problem. Now, racist people who would want to speak out are likely going to act racist to a certain degree, but that's something that often can't be mandated.\r\n\r\nWhen racist people speak out, it isn't the fact they're offending anyone that should be scary, it's the fact they might sway others to act racist that's fearsome. But we live in an age where such speech [b]is[/b] heavily looked down upon. We live in a society where people naturally stand up for others.\r\n\r\nI believe one of the biggest discriminatory problems in the US today is against homosexuals. It's still considered a controversial topic, so much of what's said isn't considered "hate speech". Someday, it likely will be deemed as such. But by the time the words spoken against gays today is considered "hate speech", it will already be widely accepted.\r\n\r\nThe government could help vanquish all this hate speech against homosexuals by outlawing said hate speeches. But that's not going to happen until [i]after[/i] the hate speeches die down, and [i]after[/i] homosexuality moves past being a controversial topic, to a regular part of our lives. If the government really wanted to help suffocate all the hate speeches spoken against homosexuals, they could legalize gay marriage. After gays are allowed to get married and they don't destroy the world, people will move on and less will be focused on speaking out against homosexuality.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted September 22, '12 3:32pm UTC

They have the right to preach ideas that differ from the constitution. They have the right to criticize the constitution. I believe people should have their rights, and speak against rights as well (obviously I'll disagree with them though).

If it offends someone? If it affects someone equality?

The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.

And why not from hurt feelings? Especially if such hurt feelings are not on an individual scale, but a mass organization perpetuating them? Modern history is littered with such examples. They exist everywhere, in India, South Africa, Malaysia.

The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.

There are differences between criticism and insulting. Critizing religion would be an analysis of religious texts. Insulting would be the anti Islam film we have seen.

The reason Christians get so much flack for parts of the bible that aren't taught is because Christians often claim to believe every word of the bible to be fact, even if they don't act like it. It's a way to show how nutty religion is.

But then, must you avoid making fun of the violent, untaught, parts of the bible merely because someone might be offended?

There's a difference between making fun of and critiquing it. There's a difference between private discussions which insult and criticize the text, and publicly putting up campaigns and views for the purpose of degrading something.

What ratio of truth and insult would be acceptable? Would it be okay to be insulting if what you said is true? Or should we be forced not to use insults at all when discussion such matter? Should you be allowed to have a TV show in which you refer to the bible as the "mother ****ing bible" where you toss various bibles over your shoulder? Should you be allowed to create videos making fun of various versus in the bible and post them on the internet? We must then take into consideration the fact that everyone is different and will express their opinions differently. Some people may take a more "respectful" approach to debating religion, whereas others freely insult it as they debate, undermining the intelligence of those they're debating with.

As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech. It's not perfect, but such a compromise panders to both parties. As mentioned in other threads, freedom is not an absolute, it is not something we can have without depriving someone else of it. We value the freedom of speech, yet others value their freedom to remain unsoiled. No one is going to have their cake and eat it; freedom is not something people can have the whole of; it is excludable. Giving it all to the person who desires freedom of speech skewers the balance.

By the time government steps in, the people will already be on their way to abolishing racism. However, I must state that it's more than just hate speech that causes problems, it's culture. Culture is what has to change, and I believe culture will change before the government decides to step in.

Culture takes a long time to change. Even today we still have pockets of culture that espouse racism; surveys have showed that across the age groups, the relationship between acceptance of inter racial marriage and age is inverse; cultural mindsets are deeply ingrained. Even the Nazi party and far right had support till the 60s in Germany and Austria; without government stamping down and outlawing such parties, they would have been far more power.

When racist people speak out, it isn't the fact they're offending anyone that should be scary, it's the fact they might sway others to act racist that's fearsome. But we live in an age where such speech is heavily looked down upon. We live in a society where people naturally stand up for others.

No we don't. Passerby effect still intrigues psychologist. The recent video of people walking casually by a knocked down girl in China beg to differ.

I believe one of the biggest discriminatory problems in the US today is against homosexuals. It's still considered a controversial topic, so much of what's said isn't considered "hate speech". Someday, it likely will be deemed as such. But by the time the words spoken against gays today is considered "hate speech", it will already be widely accepted.

It is hate speech. Whatever extreme views that evangelicals spew out, such as Robert Patson, that discriminate against gays, and taint them with hate and disgust as unequal creatures in God's eyes is hate speech.

The government could help vanquish all this hate speech against homosexuals by outlawing said hate speeches. But that's not going to happen until after the hate speeches die down, and after homosexuality moves past being a controversial topic, to a regular part of our lives. If the government really wanted to help suffocate all the hate speeches spoken against homosexuals, they could legalize gay marriage. After gays are allowed to get married and they don't destroy the world, people will move on and less will be focused on speaking out against homosexuality.

That's what many government groups are aiming for; legalising gay marriage. But hate speech slows this process down by clouding people with false impressions and information. Hate speech can be a tool that paints people in demonic colours, turning public opinion against their freedom. Hate speech always exist and will exist; there is no ''oint'' to consider where they will die off. What is dying off, or dying down? If we go by your yardstick, there is no definable point where hate speech is at a minimum level to outlaw. Furthermore, hate speech hampers the whole process. It is fine to criticize gay marriage and all, but not to spread false hate myths that all gays are such and such, like the **** Malaysian government allowing hate speech against gays, and even sponsoring groups to teach how to spot gays which further perpetuates hate.

[quote]They have the right to preach ideas that differ from the constitution. They have the right to criticize the constitution. I believe people should have their rights, and speak against rights as well (obviously I'll disagree with them though).[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf it offends someone? If it affects someone equality? \r\n\r\n[quote]The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd why not from hurt feelings? Especially if such hurt feelings are not on an individual scale, but a mass organization perpetuating them? Modern history is littered with such examples. They exist everywhere, in India, South Africa, Malaysia.\r\n\r\n[quote]The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere are differences between criticism and insulting. Critizing religion would be an analysis of religious texts. Insulting would be the anti Islam film we have seen.\r\n\r\n[quote]The reason Christians get so much flack for parts of the bible that aren't taught is because Christians often claim to believe every word of the bible to be fact, even if they don't act like it. It's a way to show how nutty religion is.\r\n\r\nBut then, must you avoid making fun of the violent, untaught, parts of the bible merely because someone might be offended?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere's a difference between making fun of and critiquing it. There's a difference between private discussions which insult and criticize the text, and publicly putting up campaigns and views for the purpose of degrading something. \r\n\r\n[quote]What ratio of truth and insult would be acceptable? Would it be okay to be insulting if what you said is true? Or should we be forced not to use insults at all when discussion such matter? Should you be allowed to have a TV show in which you refer to the bible as the "mother ****ing bible" where you toss various bibles over your shoulder? Should you be allowed to create videos making fun of various versus in the bible and post them on the internet? We must then take into consideration the fact that everyone is different and will express their opinions differently. Some people may take a more "respectful" approach to debating religion, whereas others freely insult it as they debate, undermining the intelligence of those they're debating with.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech. It's not perfect, but such a compromise panders to both parties. As mentioned in other threads, freedom is not an absolute, it is not something we can have without depriving someone else of it. We value the freedom of speech, yet others value their freedom to remain unsoiled. No one is going to have their cake and eat it; freedom is not something people can have the whole of; it is excludable. Giving it all to the person who desires freedom of speech skewers the balance. \r\n\r\n[quote]By the time government steps in, the people will already be on their way to abolishing racism. However, I must state that it's more than just hate speech that causes problems, it's culture. Culture is what has to change, and I believe culture will change before the government decides to step in.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCulture takes a long time to change. Even today we still have pockets of culture that espouse racism; surveys have showed that across the age groups, the relationship between acceptance of inter racial marriage and age is inverse; cultural mindsets are deeply ingrained. Even the Nazi party and far right had support till the 60s in Germany and Austria; without government stamping down and outlawing such parties, they would have been far more power. \r\n\r\n[quote]When racist people speak out, it isn't the fact they're offending anyone that should be scary, it's the fact they might sway others to act racist that's fearsome. But we live in an age where such speech is heavily looked down upon. We live in a society where people naturally stand up for others.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo we don't. Passerby effect still intrigues psychologist. The recent video of people walking casually by a knocked down girl in China beg to differ.\r\n\r\n[quote]I believe one of the biggest discriminatory problems in the US today is against homosexuals. It's still considered a controversial topic, so much of what's said isn't considered "hate speech". Someday, it likely will be deemed as such. But by the time the words spoken against gays today is considered "hate speech", it will already be widely accepted.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is hate speech. Whatever extreme views that evangelicals spew out, such as Robert Patson, that discriminate against gays, and taint them with hate and disgust as unequal creatures in God's eyes is hate speech.\r\n\r\n[quote]The government could help vanquish all this hate speech against homosexuals by outlawing said hate speeches. But that's not going to happen until after the hate speeches die down, and after homosexuality moves past being a controversial topic, to a regular part of our lives. If the government really wanted to help suffocate all the hate speeches spoken against homosexuals, they could legalize gay marriage. After gays are allowed to get married and they don't destroy the world, people will move on and less will be focused on speaking out against homosexuality.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's what many government groups are aiming for; legalising gay marriage. But hate speech slows this process down by clouding people with false impressions and information. Hate speech can be a tool that paints people in demonic colours, turning public opinion against their freedom. Hate speech always exist and will exist; there is no ''point'' to consider where they will die off. What is dying off, or dying down? If we go by your yardstick, there is no definable point where hate speech is at a minimum level to outlaw. Furthermore, hate speech hampers the whole process. It is fine to criticize gay marriage and all, but not to spread false hate myths that all gays are such and such, like the **** Malaysian government allowing hate speech against gays, and even sponsoring groups to teach how to spot gays which further perpetuates hate.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 22, '12 9:23pm UTC

If it offends someone? If it affects someone equality?

Saying and acting are two different things. Saying something hateful or racist isn't the same as actually treating someone as unequal.

And why not from hurt feelings? Especially if such hurt feelings are not on an individual scale, but a mass organization perpetuating them? Modern history is littered with such examples. They exist everywhere, in India, South Africa, Malaysia.

We're talking about adults here.

Anything can offend, whether it be name calling or opening someone's eyes with painful news that is true.

As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech.

No, they haven't. Laws against hate speech never ended racism - ever. As soon as society starts to warm up to the idea of homosexuality, and people accept the idea that homosexuality isn't all that bad, the government jumps in and creates anti-hate speech laws. They then take credit for ending homophobia when homophobia was already on it's way out. They have made it illegal for people to make hate speeches against gays, which is like pulling a gun out during a debate class and demanding silence.

That's what many government groups are aiming for; legalising gay marriage. But hate speech slows this process down by clouding people with false impressions and information.

By the time government finally warms up to the idea of banning speech against gay marriage, society will already have accepted gay marriage. But here's what's funny...

You're saying the government isn't powerful enough to grant homosexuals equal rights, because hate speech hampers the process. However, you believe the government can ban hate speech against homosexuals so that they can move on to creating laws that ensure homosexuals gain the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If the government has the ability to ban hate speech that impedes progress, then the government ALREADY has the ability to progress without anti-hate speech laws.

The problem isn't hate speech, it's an overbearing government with too much power. Government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, therefore we have these issues since homophobes wrote the laws.

I just don't believe hurt feelings is within the government's jurisdiction. Avorne nailed it right on the head:

I could very well say that anyone who practices Islam should be locked up or sent to rehabilitation camps. Do I? No, because I believe both in the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, people have the right to say and practice what they like. Equally though, this means that other people have just as much right to criticize and disagree with the views of others, even if their disagreement is viewed as 'insulting' it's still that persons opinion. Once you start saying "you're free to say/believe as you want... as long as it's not X" you're encroaching upon and eroding that freedom. Anyone should be allowed to shout as loudly as they like about their views but nobody should be allowed to get away with physical violence because somebody disagrees with them.

like the **** Malaysian government allowing hate speech against gays, and even sponsoring groups to teach how to spot gays which further perpetuates hate.

This is government abuse of power. The Malaysian government shouldn't ban hate speech, they should stop supporting it themselves. It's not going to do that until the people chance, since the government is made up of those same people. When the government stops, there will be far less income going towards hate speeches. We then must allow culture to evolve.

A government that's allowed to spread hate speech (and actually takes part in such) shouldn't be trusted with the power to censor the people.

[quote]If it offends someone? If it affects someone equality? [/quote]\r\n\r\nSaying and acting are two different things. Saying something hateful or racist isn't the same as actually treating someone as unequal.\r\n\r\n[quote]And why not from hurt feelings? Especially if such hurt feelings are not on an individual scale, but a mass organization perpetuating them? Modern history is littered with such examples. They exist everywhere, in India, South Africa, Malaysia.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe're talking about adults here.\r\n\r\nAnything can offend, whether it be name calling or opening someone's eyes with painful news that is true.\r\n\r\n[quote]As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech. [/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, they haven't. Laws against hate speech never ended racism - ever. As soon as society starts to warm up to the idea of homosexuality, and people accept the idea that homosexuality isn't all that bad, the government jumps in and creates anti-hate speech laws. They then take credit for ending homophobia when homophobia was already on it's way out. They have made it illegal for people to make hate speeches against gays, which is like pulling a gun out during a debate class and demanding silence.\r\n\r\n[quote]That's what many government groups are aiming for; legalising gay marriage. But hate speech slows this process down by clouding people with false impressions and information.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBy the time government finally warms up to the idea of banning speech against gay marriage, society will already have accepted gay marriage. But here's what's funny...\r\n\r\nYou're saying the government isn't powerful enough to grant homosexuals equal rights, because hate speech hampers the process. However, you believe the government can ban hate speech against homosexuals so that they can move on to creating laws that ensure homosexuals gain the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If the government has the ability to ban hate speech that impedes progress, then the government ALREADY has the ability to progress without anti-hate speech laws.\r\n\r\nThe problem isn't hate speech, it's an overbearing government with too much power. Government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, therefore we have these issues since homophobes wrote the laws. \r\n\r\nI just don't believe hurt feelings is within the government's jurisdiction. Avorne nailed it right on the head:\r\n\r\n[quote]I could very well say that anyone who practices Islam should be locked up or sent to rehabilitation camps. Do I? No, because I believe both in the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, people have the right to say and practice what they like. Equally though, this means that other people have just as much right to criticize and disagree with the views of others, even if their disagreement is viewed as 'insulting' it's still that persons opinion. Once you start saying "you're free to say/believe as you want... as long as it's not X" you're encroaching upon and eroding that freedom. Anyone should be allowed to shout as loudly as they like about their views but nobody should be allowed to get away with physical violence because somebody disagrees with them.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote] like the **** Malaysian government allowing hate speech against gays, and even sponsoring groups to teach how to spot gays which further perpetuates hate.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is government abuse of power. The Malaysian government shouldn't ban hate speech, they should stop supporting it themselves. It's not going to do that until the people chance, since the government is made up of those same people. When the government stops, there will be far less income going towards hate speeches. We then must allow culture to evolve.\r\n\r\nA government that's allowed to spread hate speech (and actually takes part in such) shouldn't be trusted with the power to censor the people.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted September 22, '12 9:42pm UTC

Saying and acting are two different things. Saying something hateful or racist isn't the same as actually treating someone as unequal.

Saying something hateful or racist tells something about the person. Lately there was that politician in my country who posted a comment on Facebook basically saying he was glad about a person's(*) death and that such people should all be shot down because they cost us money. After massive criticism he left the party, almost lost his job and has a plaint for racist comment pending. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should be trialed as if he did something racist to someone, but as an employer I would not have hesitated to fire him for racist comments, and I should be legally able to do so. As well as I should legally be able as a citizen to sue him for that.

(*)A foreigner on the run shot by the police

offline

rafterman

600 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '12 12:47am UTC

As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech.

I hardly call jailing people for facebook comments(commonly done in the UK, an example you used earlier) a successful balance.
Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 23, '12 1:08am UTC

Saying something hateful or racist tells something about the person. Lately there was that politician in my country who posted a comment on Facebook basically saying he was glad about a person's(*) death and that such people should all be shot down because they cost us money. After massive criticism he left the party, almost lost his job and has a plaint for racist comment pending.

All this happened without government intervention? That's what I'm talking about! People handled the situation themselves! The government doesn't need to step in, nor should it.

but as an employer I would not have hesitated to fire him for racist comments, and I should be legally able to do so. As well as I should legally be able as a citizen to sue him for that.

Yes and no. You shouldn't be able to sue, that's absolutely ludicrous. All he did was say something you absolutely disagree with. You shouldn't be able to force him to court and have him give up his money to you against his will merely because you got the sniffles (hurt feelings). HOWEVER, as an employer, you should be allowed to fire him. If you don't want racist people working for you, you don't have to put up with their racist remarks.

[quote]Saying something hateful or racist tells something about the person. Lately there was that politician in my country who posted a comment on Facebook basically saying he was glad about a person's(*) death and that such people should all be shot down because they cost us money. After massive criticism he left the party, almost lost his job and has a plaint for racist comment pending. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAll this happened without government intervention? That's what I'm talking about! People handled the situation themselves! The government doesn't need to step in, nor should it.\r\n\r\n[quote]but as an employer I would not have hesitated to fire him for racist comments, and I should be legally able to do so. As well as I should legally be able as a citizen to sue him for that. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYes and no. You shouldn't be able to sue, that's absolutely ludicrous. All he did was say something you absolutely disagree with. You shouldn't be able to force him to court and have him give up his money to you against his will merely because you got the sniffles (hurt feelings). HOWEVER, as an employer, you should be allowed to fire him. If you don't want racist people working for you, you don't have to put up with their racist remarks.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted September 23, '12 2:04am UTC

Anything can offend, whether it be name calling or opening someone's eyes with painful news that is true.

I am not worried about feelings per se but mass organizations giving them a bad press.

No, they haven't. Laws against hate speech never ended racism - ever. As soon as society starts to warm up to the idea of homosexuality, and people accept the idea that homosexuality isn't all that bad, the government jumps in and creates anti-hate speech laws. They then take credit for ending homophobia when homophobia was already on it's way out. They have made it illegal for people to make hate speeches against gays, which is like pulling a gun out during a debate class and demanding silence.

I didn't mean balance as in achieve an end to racism or homophobia. No where did I say it. I said balance. In Singapore for example, we can more or less say what we want provided it is not inflammatory about race or religion. It's a fair deal in view of our history.

You're saying the government isn't powerful enough to grant homosexuals equal rights, because hate speech hampers the process. However, you believe the government can ban hate speech against homosexuals so that they can move on to creating laws that ensure homosexuals gain the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If the government has the ability to ban hate speech that impedes progress, then the government ALREADY has the ability to progress without anti-hate speech laws.

It isn't contradictory. People have a right to be protected; it's enshrined in the Constitution. It's the law in many countries. But the government doesn't have the power or right to introduce civil unions when more than half the populace is against it. Banning hate speech doesn't impede the progress; I fail to see how stamping out a source of opposition, and a virulent and rabid one at that can actually hinder progress.

The problem isn't hate speech, it's an overbearing government with too much power. Government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, therefore we have these issues since homophobes wrote the laws.

Without government intervention we would still be likely to see the Jim Crow laws. Without intervention, SA wouldn't take the huge step of removing apartheid due to political power being vastly concentrated in the hands of white supremacists.

I hardly call jailing people for facebook comments(commonly done in the UK, an example you used earlier) a successful balance.
Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.

One rotten apple doesn't spoil the whole basket. I didn't exactly day that too either.

[quote]Anything can offend, whether it be name calling or opening someone's eyes with painful news that is true.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nI am not worried about feelings per se but mass organizations giving them a bad press.\r\n\r\n[quote]No, they haven't. Laws against hate speech never ended racism - ever. As soon as society starts to warm up to the idea of homosexuality, and people accept the idea that homosexuality isn't all that bad, the government jumps in and creates anti-hate speech laws. They then take credit for ending homophobia when homophobia was already on it's way out. They have made it illegal for people to make hate speeches against gays, which is like pulling a gun out during a debate class and demanding silence.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nI didn't mean balance as in achieve an end to racism or homophobia. No where did I say it. I said balance. In Singapore for example, we can more or less say what we want provided it is not inflammatory about race or religion. It's a fair deal in view of our history. \r\n\r\n[quote]You're saying the government isn't powerful enough to grant homosexuals equal rights, because hate speech hampers the process. However, you believe the government can ban hate speech against homosexuals so that they can move on to creating laws that ensure homosexuals gain the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If the government has the ability to ban hate speech that impedes progress, then the government ALREADY has the ability to progress without anti-hate speech laws.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt isn't contradictory. People have a right to be protected; it's enshrined in the Constitution. It's the law in many countries. But the government doesn't have the power or right to introduce civil unions when more than half the populace is against it. Banning hate speech doesn't impede the progress; I fail to see how stamping out a source of opposition, and a virulent and rabid one at that can actually hinder progress. \r\n\r\n[quote]The problem isn't hate speech, it's an overbearing government with too much power. Government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, therefore we have these issues since homophobes wrote the laws.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nWithout government intervention we would still be likely to see the Jim Crow laws. Without intervention, SA wouldn't take the huge step of removing apartheid due to political power being vastly concentrated in the hands of white supremacists. \r\n\r\n[quote]I hardly call jailing people for facebook comments(commonly done in the UK, an example you used earlier) a successful balance.\r\nContrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOne rotten apple doesn't spoil the whole basket. I didn't exactly day that too either.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 23, '12 2:21am UTC

It isn't contradictory. People have a right to be protected; it's enshrined in the Constitution.

-from coercion, physical harm, and fraud. If we can be protected from hate speech, we should also be protected from any debate that challenges our views, no matter how accurate the accusations may be.

But the government doesn't have the power or right to introduce civil unions when more than half the populace is against it.

If more than half the populace is homophobic, the government doesn't have the right to shut them up either.

Without government intervention we would still be likely to see the Jim Crow laws.

Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.

Without intervention, SA wouldn't take the huge step of removing apartheid due to political power being vastly concentrated in the hands of white supremacists.

This is why a Democratic-Republic should protect people's rights despite the majority.

Your examples have nothing to do with censorship.

Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.

Very well said.

[quote]It isn't contradictory. People have a right to be protected; it's enshrined in the Constitution.[/quote]\r\n\r\n-from coercion, physical harm, and fraud. If we can be protected from hate speech, we should also be protected from any debate that challenges our views, no matter how accurate the accusations may be.\r\n\r\n[quote]But the government doesn't have the power or right to introduce civil unions when more than half the populace is against it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf more than half the populace is homophobic, the government doesn't have the right to shut them up either.\r\n\r\n[quote]Without government intervention we would still be likely to see the Jim Crow laws.[/quote]\r\n\r\nGovernment censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws. \r\n\r\n[quote]Without intervention, SA wouldn't take the huge step of removing apartheid due to political power being vastly concentrated in the hands of white supremacists. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is why a Democratic-Republic should protect people's rights despite the majority.\r\n\r\nYour examples have nothing to do with censorship.\r\n\r\n[quote]Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.[/quote]\r\n\r\nVery well said.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted September 23, '12 3:22am UTC

-from coercion, physical harm, and fraud. If we can be protected from hate speech, we should also be protected from any debate that challenges our views, no matter how accurate the accusations may be.

Debate and hate speech are two very different things. Debate is carefully or at least more reasonably analyzing and criticizing or arguing about something. Hate speech is what the Nazi did.

If more than half the populace is homophobic, the government doesn't have the right to shut them up either.

It doesn't have the power to stop them from debating and believing in it. It has the power to stop people from degrading homosexuals via hate speech.

Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.

Because as you said, culture. The deep ingrained feeling that blacks were inferior was widespread and a social norm that was believed by many and not just perpetuated because of the government.

This is why a Democratic-Republic should protect people's rights despite the majority.

Your examples have nothing to do with censorship.

Actually it was ab example to show how government intervention is good at times. Culture and tradition dictate racism; the government put an end to this with the final nail in the coffin.

[quote]-from coercion, physical harm, and fraud. If we can be protected from hate speech, we should also be protected from any debate that challenges our views, no matter how accurate the accusations may be.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nDebate and hate speech are two very different things. Debate is carefully or at least more reasonably analyzing and criticizing or arguing about something. Hate speech is what the Nazi did.\r\n\r\n[quote]If more than half the populace is homophobic, the government doesn't have the right to shut them up either.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt doesn't have the power to stop them from debating and believing in it. It has the power to stop people from degrading homosexuals via hate speech. \r\n\r\n[quote]Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nBecause as you said, culture. The deep ingrained feeling that blacks were inferior was widespread and a social norm that was believed by many and not just perpetuated because of the government. \r\n\r\n[quote]This is why a Democratic-Republic should protect people's rights despite the majority.\r\n\r\nYour examples have nothing to do with censorship.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually it was ab example to show how government intervention is good at times. Culture and tradition dictate racism; the government put an end to this with the final nail in the coffin.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '12 4:06pm UTC

Read all of your posts
Just wanna say
If you hold your right to free speech so dear, we hold our prophet to be dearer and we will do what ever it takes to shut those Idiots up.
I am amazed that no one has attacked the culprits yet.

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted September 23, '12 4:12pm UTC

Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.

Yes, back when people were complete morons and took the ideas from a racist comedian. Seriously, the Jim Crow laws really muffed up America and annihilated like, 100 years of progression in social equality. It really made the US take a few steps back.

/off-topic rant

offline

Enti

9 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '12 4:51pm UTC

If you hold your right to free speech so dear, we hold our prophet to be dearer and we will do what ever it takes to shut those Idiots up.

Why? Can your prophet not shut them up himself? Can you not stand people making fun of your prophet, to the point where killing them would be justified? Really, wouldn't that make you the idiot?

I am amazed that no one has attacked the culprits yet.

In a positive or negative way?

Debate and hate speech are two very different things. Debate is carefully or at least more reasonably analyzing and criticizing or arguing about something. Hate speech is what the Nazi did.

So in the law censoring everything you don't like, you are going to put a clause that says "But reasonably analyzes is still aloud. You are aloud to criticize things....except when your not!"? How do you distinguish between debate and "hate speech", especially as far as a law is concerned?

It doesn't have the power to stop them from debating and believing in it. It has the power to stop people from degrading homosexuals via hate speech.

Yes it does. How do you distinguish between debating and hate speech, again? I can't think of any way that you could tell the difference, especially in writing a law.

Actually it was ab example to show how government intervention is good at times. Culture and tradition dictate racism; the government put an end to this with the final nail in the coffin.

Culture and tradition dictate the government, two. What Noname was saying is when the people where racist, the government was racist. Now that the people are not racist, the government is not racist. So passing a law like this would mean the people would already not be racist...

[quote]If you hold your right to free speech so dear, we hold our prophet to be dearer and we will do what ever it takes to shut those Idiots up.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy? Can your prophet not shut them up himself? Can you not stand people making fun of your prophet, to the point where killing them would be justified? Really, wouldn't that make you the idiot? \r\n\r\n[quote] I am amazed that no one has attacked the culprits yet.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn a positive or negative way?\r\n\r\n[quote]Debate and hate speech are two very different things. Debate is carefully or at least more reasonably analyzing and criticizing or arguing about something. Hate speech is what the Nazi did.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo in the law censoring everything you don't like, you are going to put a clause that says "But reasonably analyzes is still aloud. You are aloud to criticize things....except when your not!"? How do you distinguish between debate and "hate speech", especially as far as a law is concerned? \r\n\r\n[quote]It doesn't have the power to stop them from debating and believing in it. It has the power to stop people from degrading homosexuals via hate speech. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYes it does. How do you distinguish between debating and hate speech, again? I can't think of any way that you could tell the difference, especially in writing a law.\r\n\r\n[quote]Actually it was ab example to show how government intervention is good at times. Culture and tradition dictate racism; the government put an end to this with the final nail in the coffin.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCulture and tradition dictate the government, two. What Noname was saying is when the people where racist, the government was racist. Now that the people are not racist, the government is not racist. So passing a law like this would mean the people would already not be racist...

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Issues with Islam