USA news & politics

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Free speech and hate speech are different things

Dear lord... I am going to do something that i generally refrain from: I am going to use not one but two pre-emptive arguments. Apologies in advance, but give your post this might come in handy. Argument 1: The point is, and i cant believe i have to explicitly say this, the entire concept of free speech is meaningless if it only applies to things people want to hear. The purpose of free speech is for someone to have to the right to say things despite those things being offensive, insulting, degrading, etc to third parties. If someone wants to call me a dumb, sudaca, **** poor knob, i want him to be able to do so. I want him to be able to insult my race, my physical appearance, my nationality, whatever the **** he feels like it. I will chose not to do so, but i want everyone to have that right.
The way many people got around this was equivalent to trying to block the sun with a thumb: declaring anything they found offensive as hate speech.

Argument 2: Experience tell me this is generally the point in a discussion where people tend quote Popper and his paradox of tolerance. Just to save us both some time, please dont. I've actually read open society and his enemies. Trust me, it doesnt work.
If you weren't going that way, apologies and please disregard this.

and Al wasn't calling the hate speech a crime

Never said he was. In philosophy what you just did is called a strawman fallacy. Keyword being fallacy.

You implied with your question to Al that he was calling it a crime

No, i did not. I asked a question, one that i believe is quite relevant, and i've yet to receive an answer from him. If that was your interpretation then your interpretation was wrong.

 

[McTallshort]

Which is why nobody really has true freedom of speech , and in some cases for valid reasons.

Can you have freedom of speech whilst having consequences and punishment for saying something. Ie getting fired from your job.

I think 5000 years has also taught us "Rules, without them we live with the animals". I don't know of a civilised country in the world where you are free to speak anything with no consequence. For varied reasons some valid, some bad.

It isn't freedom of speech it's freedom of consequence that people seem to have confused.

As kids you can say what you want but often a parent will tell you off for being mean, offensive etc etc meaning you understand saying certain things have a consequence and you take those lessons into your life and pass them on to your children. What a lot of so called free speech absolutists have a problem with is that they can't wrap their head around the fact that what they say does matter and will have a consequence. This is normally down to their poor upbringing which isn't their fault.

 

[AlRums]

That's your response? Turning the question back? Seriously?
I haven't been in formal debates for nearly 3 decades but doing such a thing used to be down there, right next to conceding.

I find it quite rich that AllRums gives you a like, acknowledging he read my direct question and yet chose not to answer it.
In order not to do the same, i will give you a straight answer: i don't know. I'll take it even further. Ideally, I don't care; for practical matters i'll look for the relevant laws in the pertinent jurisdiction and act accordingly. In my ideal system such definition would be irrelevant. Other than screaming 'fire' in a crowded cinema, or things along those lines, i'm in favour of everyone and anyone saying whatever the hell they want. And i do so for many reasons but i'll sum it up in two: a moral one and a practical one. The moral one is that free speech is the best and most effective way to respect and protect individual autonomy. The practical one is that i find it naive, actually hilarious, that some people actually believe you can change people's mind and/or behaviour by prohibiting or censoring speech. We've got 5000 years of recorded history that strongly suggest otherwise.

My answer would still be what you replied too.

If you wish to be pedantic,then the US does define hate speech, just doesn't call it a crime like many other countries do

Hate Speech and Hate Crime

Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Hate crimes are overt acts...

www.ala.org

In fact the US has the bloody nerve to criticise other countries for not allowing hate speech.

For instance this led to someone getting a jail sentence

"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it."

Loomer says

"It's time to designate the transgender movement as a terrorist movement.

Trans people are a threat to society. We can't allow them to continue killing people. They need to be socially ostracized and the President should make medical transitioning ILLEGAL in our country"

Now that's inflammatory and threatening to the trans community.

Statisically transgenders are in far more danger from non-transgenders than non-transgenders are from transgenders

350 Transgender People Murdered In 2024: ‘Will The Violence Ever End?’

Nearly one third of those murdered were under the age of 25, in a year with a "significant increase" in the number of murders

www.forbes.com

As hard as I tried, I couldn't find any statistics of transgender killers apart to 2-3 individuals over the last ten years.

Edit: Limited search to the US

Who's the bigger threat?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

More to the point, free speech absolutists seem to think free speech laws apply to private entities, that has never been the case for any country in the whole of human history.

A private entity definitely can deny you a platform and exclude you if they want, they have no obligation whatsoever to give you a platform. This works online as well a physically, ie you can be removed from a private premises if they decide they don't like what you're saying.

 

[AlRums]

More to the point, free speech absolutists seem to think free speech laws apply to private entities, that has never been the case for any country in the whole of human history.

A private entity definitely can deny you a platform and exclude you if they want, they have no obligation whatsoever to give you a platform. This works online as well a physically, ie you can be removed from a private premises if they decide they don't like what you're saying.

While that's all true, and I whole heartedly agree, unfortunately that doesn't always work across borders.

What's legal in one country isn't necessarily legal in another.

Lucy Connolly's racial hatred post did not break X rules

The social media platform rejects a complaint about childminder Lucy Connolly's post.

www.bbc.co.uk

Many larger US corporations and big tech are under the impression that locals laws don't apply to them, when they're enforced you have orange-utan threatening extra tariffs like when the EU has the gall for fining apple and Google for breaking the law.

It's just cost Mush quite a few millions to allow twitter back in Brazil after he ignored court orders and tried an end run around a ban. Only solved when Brazil threatened to take the money from his others companies did he pay up.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Being on this thread makes me want to shoot something.

Makes me want to be shot. Two birds one stone?

 

[Ddanno]

Makes me want to be shot. Two birds one stone?

Nah dude, you're a member with value.

 

[AlRums]

And I thought loomer was bad, until this

"Or uh, involuntary lethal injection. Or something, Just kill 'em"

 

[AlRums]

GOP Anger Over Kirk Critics' Comments Leads To Online Abuse, Firings

Republicans' anger at those disrespecting Kirk's legacy contrasts with the mockery some of the same figures – including Kirk – directed at past victims of political violence.

www.huffpost.com

Expose Charlie's Murderers

www.charliesmurderers.com

Free speech ha?

 

[TommiG88]

Dear lord... I am going to do something that i generally refrain from: I am going to use not one but two pre-emptive arguments. Apologies in advance, but give your post this might come in handy. Argument 1: The point is, and i cant believe i have to explicitly say this, the entire concept of free speech is meaningless if it only applies to things people want to hear. The purpose of free speech is for someone to have to the right to say things despite those things being offensive, insulting, degrading, etc to third parties. If someone wants to call me a dumb, sudaca, **** poor knob, i want him to be able to do so. I want him to be able to insult my race, my physical appearance, my nationality, whatever the **** he feels like it. I will chose not to do so, but i want everyone to have that right.
The way many people got around this was equivalent to trying to block the sun with a thumb: declaring anything they found offensive as hate speech.

Argument 2: Experience tell me this is generally the point in a discussion where people tend quote Popper and his paradox of tolerance. Just to save us both some time, please dont. I've actually read open society and his enemies. Trust me, it doesnt work.
If you weren't going that way, apologies and please disregard this.



Never said he was. In philosophy what you just did is called a strawman fallacy. Keyword being fallacy.


No, i did not. I asked a question, one that i believe is quite relevant, and i've yet to receive an answer from him. If that was your interpretation then your interpretation was wrong.

My days that was long and predictable.

So in essence, you wouldn't allow someone run and shout fire in a cinema, but you're fine with being verbally abused without restriction. So in essence, still kerbing free speech?

 

[McTallshort]

Makes me want to be shot. Two birds one stone?

Ex British soldier shoots Irishman? No way I'm going down that road.

 

[dirty harry]

Earhardt: "What do we do about our country? We have radicals on the right and left, people are watching videos and cheering, some people are cheering that Charlie was killed. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?"

Trump: "I tell you something that is going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. Radicals on the right are radical because they don't want to see crime."

Tell me what you think Trump is referring to when he says he couldn't care less? Earhardt mentioned radicals on both sides watching videos and cheering the death of Charlie Kirk, asks how do we fix the country and how do we come together? Which of those do you think Trump couldn't care less about? And yes, how do we fix this country WAS one of the questions posed and is an option that he could be responding to. Seeing as you don't think it's that, what do you think it is? He doesn't care about people celebrating the death of Kirk or he doesn't care about bringing people together?

Amazing to think, we are 50 odd comments in and someone finally posts an accurate transcript, that absolutely shows what he said:

This is going to get me in trouble but I dont care. The coordinating conjunction, the context and the sentence structure...

There is not one rational sane person alive who sees that clip and doesnt immediately understand Trump couldn't care less about getting into trouble for saying what hes about to say, its his usual sentence structure, and a familiar linguistic trait that every comedian mimics.

If you truly believe he said he couldn't care less about fixing the country, your either malicious like the guys who posts mis quotes in his tweets posted above, or people like him have radicalised you to the point you will see the video in front of your eyes, see the quote in which he removes the context of the words, and STILL believe it.

Why would a guy, who posts daily anti trump tweets, a lot being maliciously mis interpretation, leave out the half of the sentence?

When intalk about this strategy being stupid, this is the exact thing im talking about. You guys will sit around absolutely baffled as to how anyone can vote for him, pat yourselves on the back for catching him out saying he hates America, while the red team laugh at you lot lying about what hes saying...

So you have a choice, dishonesty or radicalisation. Ill leave you to decide which tou want to take home with you, I quite like you, and id like to think your not as dishonest as a lot here, but you have to learn to see the forests for the trees.

Some of you are better than this.

 

[dirty harry]

Free speech and hate speech are different things, and Al wasn't calling the hate speech a crime, just for what it is. You implied with your question to Al that he was calling it a crime, hence why asking you a question as you asked a question for something he was clearly wasn't saying.

I don't understand how people get confused between free and hate speech

Is Hate speech a crime in the UK? Alrums was 100% drawing a legal line in the sand, hence why I asked him where that line was. The fact hes ignored questions about it from myself, and @Cruz_del_Sur means he understands that was a stupid comment.

And if it is not a country's legal system, who decides whether something constitutes hate speech? You?

You know the answer, he decides! And thats the exact reason for where we are in the UK.

 

[dirty harry]

Being on this thread makes me want to shoot something.

Starts with D and ends in H?

To be that pendant, you probably mean starts with a D and ends in a Y.

Amazing, jokes arent jokes when people you dont like make them...

So are these legitimate threats to shoot me?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Amazing to think, we are 50 odd comments in and someone finally posts an accurate transcript, that absolutely shows what he said:

This is going to get me in trouble but I dont care. The coordinating conjunction, the context and the sentence structure...

There is not one rational sane person alive who sees that clip and doesnt immediately understand Trump couldn't care less about getting into trouble for saying what hes about to say, its his usual sentence structure, and a familiar linguistic trait that every comedian mimics.

If you truly believe he said he couldn't care less about fixing the country, your either malicious like the guys who posts mis quotes in his tweets posted above, or people like him have radicalised you to the point you will see the video in front of your eyes, see the quote in which he removes the context of the words, and STILL believe it.

Why would a guy, who posts daily anti trump tweets, a lot being maliciously mis interpretation, leave out the half of the sentence?

When intalk about this strategy being stupid, this is the exact thing im talking about. You guys will sit around absolutely baffled as to how anyone can vote for him, pat yourselves on the back for catching him out saying he hates America, while the red team laugh at you lot lying about what hes saying...

So you have a choice, dishonesty or radicalisation. Ill leave you to decide which tou want to take home with you, I quite like you, and id like to think your not as dishonest as a lot here, but you have to learn to see the forests for the trees.

Some of you are better than this.

This is an unknowable question really (well I think it's pretty obvious) so not a gotcha or anything

But do you think Trump actually wants to "Fix America" or do you think he's more concerned with making things better for himself/his supporters?

I imagine you think he's a malicious ******** like all politicians who just looks to benefit himself?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Amazing to think, we are 50 odd comments in and someone finally posts an accurate transcript, that absolutely shows what he said:

This is going to get me in trouble but I dont care. The coordinating conjunction, the context and the sentence structure...

There is not one rational sane person alive who sees that clip and doesnt immediately understand Trump couldn't care less about getting into trouble for saying what hes about to say, its his usual sentence structure, and a familiar linguistic trait that every comedian mimics.

If you truly believe he said he couldn't care less about fixing the country, your either malicious like the guys who posts mis quotes in his tweets posted above, or people like him have radicalised you to the point you will see the video in front of your eyes, see the quote in which he removes the context of the words, and STILL believe it.

Why would a guy, who posts daily anti trump tweets, a lot being maliciously mis interpretation, leave out the half of the sentence?

When intalk about this strategy being stupid, this is the exact thing im talking about. You guys will sit around absolutely baffled as to how anyone can vote for him, pat yourselves on the back for catching him out saying he hates America, while the red team laugh at you lot lying about what hes saying...

So you have a choice, dishonesty or radicalisation. Ill leave you to decide which tou want to take home with you, I quite like you, and id like to think your not as dishonest as a lot here, but you have to learn to see the forests for the trees.

Some of you are better than this.

Actually no, it's not as cut and dry as you want to claim. The sentence he said can very easily mean the thing he thinks will get him in trouble is that he couldn't care less, with the follow on being his justification for it.

Even if we go with your definition, his next bit is making excuses for far right extremists whilst attacking far left extremists, he's still fanning the flames and still using it to divide rather than unite. That means he's still acting in an unpresidential manner and still can be criticized for it.

 

[dirty harry]

This is an unknowable question really (well I think it's pretty obvious) so not a gotcha or anything

But do you think Trump actually wants to "Fix America" or do you think he's more concerned with making things better for himself/his supporters?

I imagine you think he's a malicious ******** like all politicians who just looks to benefit himself?

I think he wants America to bend to his will, to convince the vast majority, and those who refuse can be outcasts.

I would imagine, as any other president he wants the USA to flourish on the world stage, and be the pinnacle of lifestyle, I mean theres no benefit to not having a socially coherent, rich, content population...

Unless it means you dont get into office in the first place. So I think hes done all the winning he wants, and not its about his legacy.

The man has all the money in the world, family, estates, toys etc, the only thing left is revenge and legacy.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think he wants America to bend to his will, to convince the vast majority, and those who refuse can be outcasts.

I would imagine, as any other president he wants the USA to flourish on the world stage, and be the pinnacle of lifestyle, I mean theres no benefit to not having a socially coherent, rich, content population...

Unless it means you dont get into office in the first place. So I think hes done all the winning he wants, and not its about his legacy.

The man has all the money in the world, family, estates, toys etc, the only thing left is revenge and legacy.

Is that a yes?

 

[dirty harry]

Actually no, it's not as cut and dry as you want to claim. The sentence he said can very easily mean the thing he thinks will get him in trouble is that he couldn't care less, with the follow on being his justification for it.

Even if we go with your definition, his next bit is making excuses for far right extremists whilst attacking far left extremists, he's still fanning the flames and still using it to divide rather than unite. That means he's still acting in an unpresidential manner and still can be criticized for it.

I 100% agree about fanning the flames, ive said the same, and I agree he acts in an u presidential manner in general...

But if it can easily be interpreted that way, why does evey anti trump outlet remove the contextual part from their reporting?

Why do they quote the question and I couldn't care less?

You know why, its a framingbgame thats been going on for 10 years, and its failed for 10 years.

Look at this guys other posts, mis quoting the commissionaler in UTAH, claiming that the police didnt have a clue about the shooter, and ignoring the next sentence that they were following 5 strong leads. Its a bad faith tactic to radicalised, and I think you know it, but its gone too far to back down and now your going to argue pedantics

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

My answer would still be what you replied too.

If you wish to be pedantic,then the US does define hate speech, just doesn't call it a crime like many other countries do

Hate Speech and Hate Crime

Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Hate crimes are overt acts...

www.ala.org

In fact the US has the bloody nerve to criticise other countries for not allowing hate speech.

As per the definition you quoted, a key part relies on intent. Who determines third party intent? I am not pedantic, details matter. Details that you, for some reason, wish to disregard.

In fact the US has the bloody nerve to criticise other countries for not allowing hate speech.

Not sure, but let us agree for the sake of the argument that it is true. I believe there is non trivial credit for such a criticism.

NB: i used the yelling fire in a cinema example. i'd include direct threats too. l'll address this subject in my reply to Tommi.