Heterosexual pride day?

"

Bars wrote:

"

Wazz72 wrote:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

As Wazz wrote: theoretically.

Fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Letting someone cross it and get away with it should not be an option.

Definetely a fine line, and really hard to tell where to draw it...

Well, I think a good place to start should be at least waiting for someone to actually say something instead of saying they shouldn't speak in the first place :P

Wherever that line is drawn, it better not leave out the right to protest. Because that would be a problem.

Laws against hate speech exist in many countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Has nothing do to with restricting individual freedom, just respecting the individual freedom of the aim(s) of hate speech.

"

Bars wrote:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Defending freedom of speech is just an empty expression if you only defend opinions you actually like.

Freedom of speech when it is peaceful and civilized is all well and good but what if it isn't? Would you defend people right to making Hate speeches? Would you defend Freedom of speech if it is abusive, hurtful and Malicious?

"

Bars wrote:

Yes, it's not problem-free for sure. Nothing is perfect. Since I'm on a quoting spree, let's continue with some Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

I wouldn't agree with Churchill though. First We don't have Democracy, we have Representative Democracy. I would think it has both authoritarian and democratic characteristic.

"

deathflower wrote:

Freedom of speech when it is peaceful and civilized is all well and good but what if it isn't? Would you defend people right to making Hate speeches? Would you defend Freedom of speech if it is abusive, hurtful and Malicious?

Yes, I would defend it to almost any extreme apart from people openly soliciting criminal and violent acts - with the often-missed caveat that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence and if someone is being harmful, they should and could very well be sued.

You don't like what someone is saying and think they are causing you emotional and other damages? Sue them. If your case is weak, you might lose it and suffer penalties - this will make you think long and hard before committing and will naturally block most of the petty and idiotic cases which would sprout like mushrooms otherwise.

This is IMO the better approach, letting society itself act as a moderator and decide on a case-by-case basis if someone is crossing lines they shouldn't be crossing. Since morality is ever changing, it allows for flexibility of the system.

The moment in which you put backdoors in the legal system itself, allowing the state to silence anything, for any reason, it will probably be abused.


About representative democracy - the idea of democracy was taken from a city-state with a small, almost rustic population by contemporary standards where everyone knew everyone else and only about 10% of the population actually had the right to vote. It was a society so different from ours in so many ways that you can't directly translate the idea to the modern world without some modifications. Again, not saying it's perfect by any means - I actually think it's degrading by the year and the Western world is in a crisis which won't end soon - but that's another debate.

"

Bars wrote:

Yes, I would defend it to almost any extreme apart from people openly soliciting criminal and violent acts - with the often-missed caveat that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence and if someone is being harmful, they should and could very well be sued.

You don't like what someone is saying and think they are causing you emotional and other damages? Sue them. If your case is weak, you might lose it and suffer penalties - this will make you think long and hard before committing and will naturally block most of the petty and idiotic cases which would sprout like mushrooms otherwise.

This is IMO the better approach, letting society itself act as a moderator and decide on a case-by-case basis if someone is crossing lines they shouldn't be crossing. Since morality is ever changing, it allows for flexibility of the system.

The moment in which you put backdoors in the legal system itself, allowing the state to silence anything, for any reason, it will probably be abused.

Basically you agree Freedom of speech isn't without limitation. It is just a question of where you draw the line.

"

Bars wrote:

About representative democracy - the idea of democracy was taken from a city-state with a small, almost rustic population by contemporary standards where everyone knew everyone else and only about 10% of the population actually had the right to vote. It was a society so different from ours in so many ways that you can't directly translate the idea to the modern world without some modifications. Again, not saying it's perfect by any means - I actually think it's degrading by the year and the Western world is in a crisis which won't end soon - but that's another debate.

When people say Democracy it really meant Representative Democracy. Politicians does it all the time.

"

deathflower wrote:

Basically you agree Freedom of speech isn't without limitation. It is just a question of where you draw the line.

Of course. Isn't this always the question :)

I don't see anything wrong with heterosexual pride day. Anyone that has a problem is clearly a bigot.

"

deathflower wrote:

Freedom of speech when it is peaceful and civilized is all well and good but what if it isn't? Would you defend people right to making Hate speeches? Would you defend Freedom of speech if it is abusive, hurtful and Malicious?

Have fun watching this public lynch mob mentality develop. Ten to twenty years from now, even asking the question you asked will make you a subject of ridicule, and if associated with your real name, would likely get you fired from your job.

Hate Speech of any kind and refusing to apologize and pay reparations for your privileges (itemized on your tax return form) will be the only reason capitol punishment will still exist.

Maybe GGG can contact Interpol and have them round up the perpetrators who post Hate Speech about the Labyrinth. I'm not sure how long the sentence should be, but it should include doing a dozen successful lab runs each day.

Don't be hatin' my post either, or Interpol will have to prosecute that too :P

It's just one small step from freedom of speech to freedom of thought.

Abuse, harassment, persecution an discrimination can be prosecuted without limiting freedom of speech at all, if you look at the underlying patterns of behavior, intent and actual harm rather than the words or phrases.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Have fun watching this public lynch mob mentality develop. Ten to twenty years from now, even asking the question you asked will make you a subject of ridicule, and if associated with your real name, would likely get you fired from your job.

Hate Speech of any kind and refusing to apologize and pay reparations for your privileges (itemized on your tax return form) will be the only reason capitol punishment will still exist.

Maybe GGG can contact Interpol and have them round up the perpetrators who post Hate Speech about the Labyrinth. I'm not sure how long the sentence should be, but it should include doing a dozen successful lab runs each day.

Don't be hatin' my post either, or Interpol will have to prosecute that too :P

It's just one small step from freedom of speech to freedom of thought.

Abuse, harassment, persecution an discrimination can be prosecuted without limiting freedom of speech at all, if you look at the underlying patterns of behavior, intent and actual harm rather than the words or phrases.

You know that is fear mongering and slippery slope fallacy.

"

deathflower wrote:

You know that is fear mongering and slippery slope fallacy.

It's a little over the top for the purpose of illustration, but overall it's not that much different of a future than the current perspective is from the past. If you haven't already noticed public meta shifts, you will as time goes on. Some of it is good, and other parts are just pure garbage.

The first generation born to parents raised with this mind set is beginning, and the parents won't really understand what to question because they were taught not to think for themselves when it comes to values.

Even this will no longer be considered normal: