Originally posted by Doc Tor:
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Seriously? How do you get anything done?
quote:At a grade school level, sure, but some of us move past that.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Are you not able to write in plain English ?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The first point that comes to my mind is: what is the difference between "unrestricted personal abuse" and "hate speech"? IIRC, a distinction (which may well not be the same distinction), exists in British law between language which is defamatory (in the strict legal meaning of the word) and language which is vulgar abuse. Do we have anyone here with the legal knowledge to tell us about this, and also what is the legal definition of "hate speech"?
Originally posted by Byron:
I wanna see if a belief in a right to use speech for unrestricted personal abuse can be reconciled with the belief that restrictions are justified on speech that deals with matters of public concern (hate speech, Holocaust denial, all the usual nasties).
quote:In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
quote:It clearly assumes that it's wrong to "offend, insult, or humiliate" people, but, oddly, only on a narrow bunch of grounds. Offense, insult, and humiliation are not, therefore, taken to be inherently harmful. It'd be like saying it's illegal to assault someone, but only if it's on the grounds of their race or citizenship.
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
quote:To clarify, I was referring not to anyone's right to post (like you say, there is no such right, this is in effect a private club) but to the legal right for the Ship to host such material. Clearly, it's thought that it should be allowed. I'm interested in the justification for it being protected speech, and if those who support it would ban other kinds of speech, like the above Section 18C.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
That may surprise you because down in Hell the rules are pretty lax, but I'm sure you noticed there are still 'Hosts' down there.
quote:My rough and ready answer is "social consensus".
Originally posted by Byron:
What underpins this stuff?
quote:But there is stuff that we don't allow, is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:To clarify, I was referring not to anyone's right to post (like you say, there is no such right, this is in effect a private club) but to the legal right for the Ship to host such material. Clearly, it's thought that it should be allowed. I'm interested in the justification for it being protected speech, and if those who support it would ban other kinds of speech, like the above Section 18C.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:In what context? You don't have such a right on the Ship.
Originally posted by Byron:
No doubt, denizens of the pit are united around an unalienable right to run our mouths off (keyboard braves that we are)
That may surprise you because down in Hell the rules are pretty lax, but I'm sure you noticed there are still 'Hosts' down there.
quote:Fair point, there's limits, but the free reign to insult and (attempt to) offend extends a long way. Should, say, 18C be done away with, as Canada's Section 13 was? 18C specifically targets insults and offense. If insults should be allowed on one ground, why not another?
Originally posted by orfeo:
But there is stuff that we don't allow, is what I'm saying.
You (and I, for that matter) have pretty much got free reign to hurl obscenities at each other and basically come up with a million variations of "I think you're an idiot", but it's a fact that other kinds of comments in Hell have been removed by the Hosts/Admins. I also think there's at least one example of someone being kicked off the Ship altogether where part of the offending behaviour had occurred in Hell.
quote:This, for the want of a better definition, is what most laws are.
Originally posted by Byron:
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
quote:Well, putting my Christian hat on for a minute,
Originally posted by Byron:
Yup, I'd agree that "social consensus" is crucial. And like you say, anyone who sticks around the Ship has, in effect, consented.
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
I think the apostles' comments on freedom for Christians and self-imposed limits for the common good are more widely applicable (you can see the comments I made about it last Sunday in church here starting towards the bottom of page 2 (on-the-fly translation from the French)).quote:What does "inherently harmful" mean?
Originally posted by Byron:
Section 18D qualifies 18C with public interest and artistic merit defenses, but you clearly agree that some insults should be allowable without reaching either threshold. Should they continued to be banned under 18C?
If so, why target insults, humiliation and offense on such narrow grounds? If they're inherently harmful, surely they ought to be banned across the board in a content neutral fashion, as crimes like vandalism and assault are?
quote:The whole purpose of the rule of law is that might be made, if not right, at least defensible. If law's arbitrary, why bother having it? We should just give fealty to our favored warlord and have done.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This, for the want of a better definition, is what most laws are.
Originally posted by Byron:
Can it be defended on any other grounds, or is it just arbitrary, decided by whatever a majority is wiling to run with?
As has been shown, making laws which are then routinely flouted and held in contempt by the majority leads to them being repealed. Those laws that stick around are generally there because the majority will wear them.
I appreciate that sometimes someone will want to base a law on a principle they feel very strongly about. However, they still need (outside of an autocracy) popular support.
quote:There's a difference between what you're describing as 'arbitrary' and capricious. There's a fairly fundamental difference between knowing what the law is before you act, and finding out after you've acted that your favored warlord now doesn't like what you did.
Originally posted by Byron:
If law's arbitrary, why bother having it? We should just give fealty to our favored warlord and have done.
quote:Harm inseparable from the act. Every legal system accept that punching someone in the face is inherently harmful, and bans it, outside narrow exceptions for things like contact sports and self-defense.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What does "inherently harmful" mean?
quote:I don't think it's the sum total, I know states in the Commonwealth have their own legislation, I'm just interested in your position on the concept behind it, banning insults and other offensive conduct. Should it be repealed, or reworded to remove the references to insult, offense, and humiliation?
And why do you think that the Racial Discrimination Act is the sum total of the law on insulting, humiliating and offending? The clue's in the title. I'm not going to enter into a vast discussion about the Australian constitutional system but the Racial Discrimination Act deals with the implementation of the international convention on race (the title of which I've forgotten). It's not intended to deal with any other topic besides race.
quote:Yes, predictability's a justification, but it's a fairly low burden for laws. Shouldn't they at least have a defensible rational basis?
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a difference between what you're describing as 'arbitrary' and capricious. There's a fairly fundamental difference between knowing what the law is before you act, and finding out after you've acted that your favored warlord now doesn't like what you did.
quote:And Australia's own racial discrimination commissioner, from the same organisation, said that this was rubbish. It's in the same article. You're talking about someone who is a controversial appointee.
Originally posted by Byron:
And when it comes to predictability, 18C, even qualified by 18D, leaves a ton of uncertainty. It has a chilling effect on speech, as no one knows exactly what's banned. Australia's own human rights commissioner's called for its repeal, as it may well prohibit Charlie Hebdo.
quote:It is defensible. "It's how we do things 'round here" is exactly the defence.
Originally posted by Byron:
The whole purpose of the rule of law is that might be made, if not right, at least defensible.
quote:Do you believe that "insult," "humiliation," and "offense" inflict "severe psychological harm" on if they're on the prohibited grounds? If so, what's the evidence for this? If not, should the list be expanded?
Originally posted by orfeo:
My personal opinion - and apparently the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, because the opinion poll numbers on this question were some of the strongest I've seen in a long time - is no. Society doesn't function well when you tell people they are free to inflict severe psychological harm on the people around them no matter what.
quote:So am I, as that'd be malicious communication, designed to threaten individuals, not advance public debate. 18C, however, goes far beyond that.
Man Haron Monis was convicted of a charge based on the same ideas, for using the postal service to offend. I am perfectly happy with a law that says it's not okay to write directly to the bereaved families of soldiers and tell them that their son or husband is a pig and that the body is contaminated.
quote:Fair enough, but on this, he's got a point.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Australia's own racial discrimination commissioner, from the same organisation, said that this was rubbish. It's in the same article. You're talking about someone who is a controversial appointee.
quote:What makes it obvious? For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable. Such opinions would clearly be snared by 18C, without any guarantee of acquittal under 18D. In having such a narrow list of criteria, the law fails even on its own terms, leaving all kinds of groups unprotected from insult, humiliation and offense.
As for the general complaint about uncertainty of laws, don't get me started. If you write a law with a list of acceptable phrases, how many pages are you prepared to read? People look at principles-based things and complain it's not specific enough. People look at black-letter law and complain it's too detailed. You can have one or the other. It's obvious to me which is the better approach in this context.
quote:That was pretty much John Milton's position.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apart from that, I'm a sort of Christian Adam Smith: I think that ideally, ideas should be allowed to compete freely and the best idea win.
quote:These sentences don't match.
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
quote:This is precisely why I said you have to look at 18D as well, because legitimate public debate is one of the things it's designed to protect. Andrew Bolt was found to have breached 18C because he was found not to be advancing an honestly held opinion, but to be making claims that he either knew weren't true or was reckless as to whether they were true. How does it "advance public debate" to allow people to say things that aren't true?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:So am I, as that'd be malicious communication, designed to threaten individuals, not advance public debate. 18C, however, goes far beyond that.
Man Haron Monis was convicted of a charge based on the same ideas, for using the postal service to offend. I am perfectly happy with a law that says it's not okay to write directly to the bereaved families of soldiers and tell them that their son or husband is a pig and that the body is contaminated.
quote:The latter sentence does not follow from the former. The problem is the little phrase "as possible." Possible without risk to what? Laws restricting freedom of speech seek to reduce harm without undue hit to public good. Everything is a trade-off on those terms -- everything has both good and bad results, and this is especially true of every law.
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I favour freedom of speech. We've given far too much leeway in recent years to people who insist on some right not to be offended.
quote:In the US it's possible for a black man to go to prison because a white woman complained that he looked at her funny. This is definitely a step above lynching them for the same offense, but I really don't think we need any more laws protecting people who think they have the right to never be offended.
Worse, this system teaches people that the use of force is an appropriate response to words and images that offend—a principle that is poisonous to free speech and conducive to violence.
quote:They match fine. One progresses from another: an unrestricted opinion requires people feel free to speak.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:These sentences don't match.
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
quote:Of course such a system is unworkable, good thing no one proposed it here.
As for obviousness, I was saying that to me it's obvious that a system that tried to restrict specific words and phrases is unworkable. Sometimes saying "Fire!" is fine and sometimes it isn't. You might as well complain that the US Supreme Court hasn't spelt out exactly what you can say and when you can say it. It has to be principles based. It's simply not possible for a law to tell you ahead of time exactly what combination of words, pictures or anything else will cross the line - regardless of exactly what 'line' we are talking about.
quote:The Bolt judgment contains this jaw-dropping slab of paternalism:-
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is precisely why I said you have to look at 18D as well, because legitimate public debate is one of the things it's designed to protect. Andrew Bolt was found to have breached 18C because he was found not to be advancing an honestly held opinion, but to be making claims that he either knew weren't true or was reckless as to whether they were true. How does it "advance public debate" to allow people to say things that aren't true?
I talked about lying when we were hammering stuff out in Hell. You told me there wasn't a right to lie. Why not? It's speech, isn't it? You're actually allowed to lie in all sorts of contexts.
quote:That's free citizens being treated like children.
I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some peoplesusceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views andthat, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened.
quote:To take another run at the parsing, "as possible" means exactly that: all expressive speech should be allowed unless there's a compelling government interest in restricting speech that endangers the people, such as inciting violence, defrauding investors, perjuring yourself (and I don't like to use "speech" in this way, it's a concession to get past ... enthusiastic disagreement over its definition).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The latter sentence does not follow from the former. The problem is the little phrase "as possible." Possible without risk to what? Laws restricting freedom of speech seek to reduce harm without undue hit to public good. Everything is a trade-off on those terms -- everything has both good and bad results, and this is especially true of every law.
Originally posted by Byron:
For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable.
Is allowing "the most extreme opinions imaginable" necessary? What positive good (not theoretical but actual good) does it do?
quote:I think that France's long tradition of anticlericalism is one of the aspects of the social consensus here that is going to have to change, indeed for my money it'd be one of the best possible outcomes of this crisis.
Originally posted by Byron:
It could well be argued that, by incorporating French Muslims into France's long tradition of anticlericalism, Charlie is including them, treating them just as it'd treat other French citizens.
quote:To be clear, this is the paragraph I'm referring to when I say that you seem to have the effect of 18D completely backwards. 18C doesn't set out to target speech on matters of public conern. It makes no reference to public concern. Whereas 18D specifically says that you CAN offend or insult when dealing with matters of public conern.
Originally posted by Byron:
Going back to consistency, how d'you reconcile support for 18C, which polices speech on matters of public concern, with support for a broad right to insult people? Surely, if you don't want people to use insults or cause offense in the former context, the latter, without the public interest component, should be even more tightly policed.
quote:Surely if lying is not a crime, that's the same as to say there's a right to lie.
Originally posted by Byron:
There's no right to lie, but neither is lying a crime, and truth is often open to question.
quote:While witnesses swear to tell the truth, there is no offence of perjury. You might get done for perverting the course of justice*, but since the standard of proof is "intimate conviction" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt", the actual truth is rather secondary.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously? How do you get anything done?
quote:Fascinating insight.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that ideally, ideas should be allowed to compete freely and the best idea win. I sort of think this was what God betted on when he introduced free will and the New Covenant, and I'm increasingly coming to the view that Christianity actually needs interaction with opposing ideologies to thrive: hence my support for a pluralistic society.
quote:Intime conviction means "intimate (or innermost) conviction". This is the basis on which French judges and juries are supposed to rule on guilt or innocence, not "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities". I guess it relates to the fact we have an inquisitorial system of justice rather than an adversarial one. But this is all a bit of a tangent.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whatever 'intimate conviction' is trying to translate, it is conspicuously failing. What does the term really mean in its native tongue?
quote:I'm still trying to parse this, and I just can't.
Originally posted by Byron:
but when the lie is a part of an opinion on a matter of public concern
quote:I agree with those that have said the second sentence does not follow from the first. Here are some more reasons:-
Originally posted by Byron:
... For a marketplace of ideas to exist, speech must be as free as possible. People must be confident in voicing the most extreme opinions imaginable. ...
quote:I have heard that Kierkegaard said, "Christianity needs fresh air; it needs persecution."
Originally posted by Eutychus
...I'm increasingly coming to the view that Christianity actually needs interaction with opposing ideologies to thrive...
quote:Exactly, there's no distinction between speech on private and public concern, 18C sweeps up every public statement. 18D offers an affirmative defense for speech in the public interest, but in its emphasis on reasonableness, fairness, and honesty, it's conditional in the extreme.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] ... you seem to have the effect of 18D completely backwards. 18C doesn't set out to target speech on matters of public concern. It makes no reference to public concern. Whereas 18D specifically says that you CAN offend or insult when dealing with matters of public concern. [...[
quote:This can only have a chilling effect on free speech. Moreover, what's it achieving? Maybe it flew in 1975, but with the net, the speech (and far worse besides) is readily available. It's protecting only uninterested people who might stumble over the cartoons, surely the people least likely to be affected.
At some point the claim to satire comes under strain, because it can be hard to defend an offensive racial stereotype (such as the hook-nosed Jew, also used by Charlie Hebdo at times) where the harm that reinforcing that negative image causes far transcends any possible public benefit from the artistic content.
quote:I never understand this phrasing. All you're saying is that a law works because it discourages people from doing something. You might as well say that murder laws have a chilling effect on killing, or that traffic laws have a chilling effect on the way people drive their cars.
Originally posted by Byron:
This can only have a chilling effect on free speech.
quote:I don't think I would, no. The caricature of the hook-nosed Jew is so indelibly tainted by European anti-semitism (and Nazi propaganda in particular) that I think it's pretty much indefensible. I'd have to ask my Jewish friends very carefully as to their reaction before coming to a firm conclusion.
Originally posted by Byron:
You would, presumably, defend antisemitic caricatures in an ironic context, like Joe Sacco's Charlie Hebdo cartoon?
quote:It is worth noting in this context that Jewish groups were at the forefront in telling the government they were deeply worried at the proposal to alter the sections of the Racial Discrimination Act. They immediately foresaw the potential for anti-Semitism to grow.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What no one has adequately explained is what the purpose of being able to portray Jews as hook-nosed shysters has within free speech.
How does this aid the market place of ideas? The only reason I can see for writing a law that permits this is to allow the open persecution of a minority.
quote:Sorry, but this is still wrong. If section 18D wanted to be a defence, it would say "it is a defence". You'd said something along these lines several times already and I let it go, but I'm not going to let it go this time.
Originally posted by Byron:
Exactly, there's no distinction between speech on private and public concern, 18C sweeps up every public statement. 18D offers an affirmative defense for speech in the public interest, but in its emphasis on reasonableness, fairness, and honesty, it's conditional in the extreme.
quote:I think it's up to the jurisdiction concerned. Certainly in Europe, the caricature is so freighted with meaning, that I can't see a good reason for ever using it. Even 'ironically'.
Originally posted by Byron:
Do you agree, with Doc Tor, that antisemitic caricatures should be banned in all circumstances? If so, there's plenty Jewish people who'd disagree, including the Jewish attorneys who've defended the KKK.
quote:Whatever the artist is trying to do, be it attack neo-Nazism, Middle Eastern antisemitism, or something else. As laws apply to all, this'll snare many Jewish satirists. You think Gentile judges ought to be policing Jewish humor?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think it's up to the jurisdiction concerned. Certainly in Europe, the caricature is so freighted with meaning, that I can't see a good reason for ever using it. Even 'ironically'.
But seriously - what idea would that suppress?
quote:And traffic laws? Nice of you to pick off the easy example, not the hard one.
Originally posted by Byron:
Orfeo, murder is tightly defined: you need a dead body and a specific kind of intent. Sweeping laws against speech are a whole other thing.
quote:I've no idea. I would have to go away and think carefully about what makes something antisemitic, what makes it a caricature, and just what circumstances might come up.
Do you agree, with Doc Tor, that antisemitic caricatures should be banned in all circumstances? If so, there's plenty Jewish people who'd disagree, including the Jewish attorneys who've defended the KKK.
quote:So they basically go by what Americans would call their "gut feeling"? Seems like it could be as problematic as our adversarial system.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Intime conviction means "intimate (or innermost) conviction". This is the basis on which French judges and juries are supposed to rule on guilt or innocence, not "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities". I guess it relates to the fact we have an inquisitorial system of justice rather than an adversarial one. But this is all a bit of a tangent.
quote:I wasn't, especially, there's just as many shades to murder laws (murder one/two, depraved indifference, conspiracy, felony murder, etc).
Originally posted by orfeo:
And traffic laws? Nice of you to pick off the easy example, not the hard one.
quote:Problem is the "particular kind of thing," (well, things) encompasses so much, and is so imprecise: insult, offense, humiliation could be attached to a sweep of expressive conduct, from abusive speech we can both agree has no value, to satire, to op-ed pieces, to movies and theater.
You're using as your example of a 'sweeping' law against speech something that says it is not okay to do a particular kind of thing against a defined group of people for a particular reason, in particular circumstances.
You are kidding yourself if you think that's sweeping. I can't imagine what adjectives you're going to have left by the time we get to countries where only government-owned media is permitted and it is forbidden to establish a political party without permission.
quote:I posted it in Hell not to continue the other thread (why I've run with the other use of "speech") but to explore the issues raised in a hellish way. It got moved, I adjusted the tone. I picked 18C both as a courtesy, and 'cause it fit your area of expertise.
I've no idea. I would have to go away and think carefully about what makes something antisemitic, what makes it a caricature, and just what circumstances might come up.
All of which I'd do if you were paying me, but you're not and frankly I've got conceptual problems of the same nature to deal with for which people are paying me.
Nor do I think it's worth my while to spend any more time discussing with you in general how laws work and what their function is, or who gets to make them. You appear to have a very idealistic streak in you on that and I don't want to spend days and days battling you on every point about what actually happens in practice.
You say that you're not singling Australia out, but it's pretty clear to me that you chose your battleground upon my arrival and that most of this thread is merely an attempt by you to continue arguing the same things you were arguing on a Hell thread. You can argue them if you like, but I eventually told you I'd had enough of it then (at which point you were remorseful, which rather shows that you do NOT in practice believe in a free-for-all of ideas) and I've had enough of it now.
I am going to go back to my actual job of writing laws, and I will file away your cries of uncertainty with all the other cries of uncertainty I've heard over the past 6 or 7 years. The problem is that most people don't get to the point of asking themselves what 'certainty' would look like. It certainly doesn't look like "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" unless you completely ignore the amount of time that has been spent over the years defining it and carving out exceptions to it.
quote:It's not actually that difficult to be personally insulting - "Doc Tor is a poopy head" - without demonising the whole race/class/gender/age that someone belongs to - "Everyone north of Watford Gap is a poopy head".
Originally posted by Byron:
How is this lack of support for the right of artists and satirists to express themselves compatible with your support of a broad right to be personally insulting?
quote:There was an attempt in 2007 to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo on exactly these grounds.
Eutycus said
However, as far as I know no Muslim group has sought legal action against Charlie Hebdo for, say, incitement to religious hatred. My guess (but it is a guess) is that they don't want to do this for fear of being perceived as playing the victim card - or possibly since they are simply less well-connected in the courts.
quote:This seems to be the exact opposite way most rights are examined or interpreted. The usual perspective is to explain why certain restrictions by the state are necessary, not to demand anyone wanting to express a controversial opinion justify in advance why their opinion is harmless.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What no one has adequately explained is what the purpose of being able to portray Jews as hook-nosed shysters has within free speech.
How does this aid the market place of ideas? The only reason I can see for writing a law that permits this is to allow the open persecution of a minority.
quote:To me, it's not so much that we gain anything in the immediacy by allowing anti-semitic propaganda(and I'm willing to concede that we may lose some things). It's that, in order to suppress that propaganda, we would need to give the state more powers than I am comfortable with the state having.
What no one has adequately explained is what the purpose of being able to portray Jews as hook-nosed shysters has within free speech.
How does this aid the market place of ideas? The only reason I can see for writing a law that permits this is to allow the open persecution of a minority.
quote:Someone could, but it would be an astonishingly poor comparison. The problem in South Africa is not whether or not AIDS Denialism is banned, but whether or not the government promotes it.
Originally posted by Stetson:
As a comparison, someone could argue in favour of passing a law outlawing AIDS Denialism...
quote:Yes, it would. Which is why such a resource is invaluable, and common sense would be used to provide an exclusion - in exactly the same way exclusions exist in Germany for the use of the Nazi salute and the Swastika.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take your stated and very specific example, it would seem to very much damage "the marketplace of ideas" to either ban something like this brief academic survey of Nazi visual propaganda or to demand that it be stripped of pictures of the things being discussed.
quote:Relying on special post hoc exclusions seems more like enforcing a government-mandated orthodoxy rather than applying a principle. "Common sense" is also notoriously fickle. The original artists of those drawings you would outlaw (except in academic settings, apparently) were also relying on their "common sense" that Jews were terrible people. A lot of what gets passed off as "common sense" is little more than prejudice.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Yes, it would. Which is why such a resource is invaluable, and common sense would be used to provide an exclusion - in exactly the same way exclusions exist in Germany for the use of the Nazi salute and the Swastika.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take your stated and very specific example, it would seem to very much damage "the marketplace of ideas" to either ban something like this brief academic survey of Nazi visual propaganda or to demand that it be stripped of pictures of the things being discussed.
quote:The obvious answer is "the Jews are all terrible people", which is an odious idea. But even more odious is the idea of the state using its power to enforce limits on ideas or expression. It's fairly easy to anticipate a state using what you contend is it's legitimate power to stifle criticism of certain groups to protect its own favored cronies or even its own actions from negative comment. It certainly would seem like "common sense" to state officials that their own actions are good and justified and critics are just whiny crybabies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point is - as I'm guessing you already know - the creation of new art caricaturing Jews. What is the idea that such art would be promulgating?
quote:Well, I have heard it argued that racist speech meeds to be banned, because of the chance that it may influence people to become racist, eventually leading to widespread racism and a racist takeover of the government(Nazi Germany being the template for this scenario). So, to a lot of the people who make the argument, yes, government promotion is very much the outcome that they fear.
Someone could, but it would be an astonishingly poor comparison. The problem in South Africa is not whether or not AIDS Denialism is banned, but whether or not the government promotes it.
So no, let's not argue that.
quote:Because strong programs of government censorship, such as you're advocating, tend not to limit themselves to one tightly defined case, and it's fairly easy to see why. Once you've carved out one group, criticism of which can result in fines or imprisonment*, other groups will want similar immunity from public criticism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Honestly? I'd much rather argue about something that is actually happening than some tortuous analogy that always eventually breaks down.
Let's talk about anti-semitism instead. What benefit is it to my society to permit the creation of racist depictions of Jews?
(eta "banning anti-semitism"? As if we could...)
quote:Fair enough. I believe there are some circumstances where that is necessary. The democratically elected German government agrees.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Relying on special post hoc exclusions seems more like enforcing a government-mandated orthodoxy rather than applying a principle.
quote:Bearing in mind that the example we're talking about led (more or less directly) to the death of six million Jews, I think you'll struggle with persuading anyone that a ban on drawing hook-nosed Jews for the purposes of spreading antisemitism is more odious...
Originally posted by Crœsos:quote:The obvious answer is "the Jews are all terrible people", which is an odious idea. But even more odious is the idea of the state using its power to enforce limits on ideas or expression.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point is - as I'm guessing you already know - the creation of new art caricaturing Jews. What is the idea that such art would be promulgating?
quote:Okay. I could fisk your post, but I have better things to do.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because strong programs of government censorship, such as you're advocating, tend not to limit themselves to one tightly defined case, and it's fairly easy to see why. Once you've carved out one group, criticism of which can result in fines or imprisonment*, other groups will want similar immunity from public criticism.
And didn't you yourself describe a document containing racist depictions of Jews as "invaluable"? That would seem to answer your own question.
quote:Have to disagree with you there. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't solely a bunch of racist drawings that led to the Holocaust. There was a huge body of written work and several centuries of religious bigotry involved as well. I'm pretty sure that even if they'd been limited to non-visual portrayals of Jews the Nazis would still have perpetrated the Holocaust.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Bearing in mind that the example we're talking about led (more or less directly) to the death of six million Jews, I think you'll struggle with persuading anyone that a ban on drawing hook-nosed Jews for the purposes of spreading antisemitism is more odious...
Originally posted by Crœsos:quote:The obvious answer is "the Jews are all terrible people", which is an odious idea. But even more odious is the idea of the state using its power to enforce limits on ideas or expression.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point is - as I'm guessing you already know - the creation of new art caricaturing Jews. What is the idea that such art would be promulgating?
quote:How so? And does this mean that a neo-Nazi organization can get around the censors by simply illustrating their pamphlets with pictures cribbed from Uncle Adolf's vaults? If you set up a standard that says "anti-semitic images are illegal, except for historical ones", I'm pretty sure the end-run around that standard will be screamingly obvious to even the thickest skinhead.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Historical documents are, as I've already stated, a separate, special case.
quote:No doubt they will. But in order to evade the slippery slope fallacy, you'll need to show us why it is necessary that legislatures should respond to all such appeals.
Because strong programs of government censorship, such as you're advocating, tend not to limit themselves to one tightly defined case, and it's fairly easy to see why. Once you've carved out one group, criticism of which can result in fines or imprisonment*, other groups will want similar immunity from public criticism.
quote:Well, why don't we see how the German courts decide what a 'satirical' use of the Nazi salute is? We could use the same principles to decide what might be a non-inflammatory use of such historical images.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How so? And does this mean that a neo-Nazi organization can get around the censors by simply illustrating their pamphlets with pictures cribbed from Uncle Adolf's vaults? If you set up a standard that says "anti-semitic images are illegal, except for historical ones", I'm pretty sure the end-run around that standard will be screamingly obvious to even the thickest skinhead.
quote:The opinion of the source you quoted earlier is
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that it wasn't solely a bunch of racist drawings that led to the Holocaust.
quote:Just to make it clear: you are defending the creation of anti-semitic caricatures of Jews that are solely drawn to promote the hatred of all Jews, because you think banning them is a violation of your right to free speech.
The campaign's only rationale was to blunt the sensibilities of the people regarding the campaign of persecution and murder which was being carried out ... they were not designed to unite the German people in the war effort (but to) subdue any doubt (regarding the) racial persecution to which the Jews were to be subjected.
quote:This is what always perplexes me. It seems as if the right to free speech is treated in a complete vacuum, as if one was standing in a forest speaking to the trees with no-one else around.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just to make it clear: you are defending the creation of anti-semitic caricatures of Jews that are solely drawn to promote the hatred of all Jews, because you think banning them is a violation of your right to free speech.
quote:I didn't say they'd respond to "all such appeals". Legislatures will tend to favor and protect the groups they like, and not do so for those they don't. That's so commonplace an observation I didn't think it needed a special explanation. If you want to go the the long way around; governments that have the power to punish the disparagement of groups or organizations will tend to do so primarily in defense of groups or organizations they like and not do so for those groups or organizations they don't like. I didn't think the idea "governments will often try to expand their own power and do so to benefit factions they like" was one that needed particular explanation.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos wrote:quote:No doubt they will. But in order to evade the slippery slope fallacy, you'll need to show us why it is necessary that legislatures should respond to all such appeals.
Because strong programs of government censorship, such as you're advocating, tend not to limit themselves to one tightly defined case, and it's fairly easy to see why. Once you've carved out one group, criticism of which can result in fines or imprisonment, other groups will want similar immunity from public criticism.
quote:If your standard of determining what is anti-semitic depends on the determinations of the German government, doesn't that become a bit problematic when dealing with official German government publications, as we're discussing?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, why don't we see how the German courts decide what a 'satirical' use of the Nazi salute is? We could use the same principles to decide what might be a non-inflammatory use of such historical images.
quote:Yes, especially since you've given no plausible explanation other than personal preference why such restrictions would only be used on expressions you don't like. If you're willing to argue that if people are allowed to call Bernie Madoff a "money-grubbing shyster" without fear of prosecution then Treblinka will go in to operation again, there's no limit to what can be forbidden.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just to make it clear: you are defending the creation of anti-semitic caricatures of Jews that are solely drawn to promote the hatred of all Jews, because you think banning them is a violation of your right to free speech.
quote:I think it's more that he's opposing attempts to prevent their creation by the use of state force. There is a difference, unless you're a strict consequentialist.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just to make it clear: you are defending the creation of anti-semitic caricatures of Jews that are solely drawn to promote the hatred of all Jews, because you think banning them is a violation of your right to free speech.
quote:No, sorry. The argument ad absurdum is a legitimate debating technicque. If you say that a particular example of "A" should be treated in a certain way BECAUSE it is an "A", then it is valid to ask that you hold all "A"s to the same standard. And, if you can't bring yourself to say that they should all be treated the same, you need to go back and reconsider your original principles.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Honestly? I'd much rather argue about something that is actually happening than some tortuous analogy that always eventually breaks down.
Let's talk about anti-semitism instead. What benefit is it to my society to permit the creation of racist depictions of Jews?
(eta "banning anti-semitism"? As if we could...)
quote:You have a problem here. You've said what might happen if X. X has already happened. What you say might have happened, hasn't happened. So you can posit all you like - if it hasn't actually happened, your argument is, while not invalid, little more than scaremongering.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, especially since you've given no plausible explanation other than personal preference why such restrictions would only be used on expressions you don't like. If you're willing to argue that if people are allowed to call Bernie Madoff a "money-grubbing shyster" without fear of prosecution then Treblinka will go in to operation again, there's no limit to what can be forbidden.
- If anyone's allowed to deny that Roman Catholicism is the One True Faith, it might re-ignite the Thirty Years' War!
- Any negative comment about the American steel industry could stir up violence like the Homestead Strike and the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick!
So yes, I sincerely object to what seems to be an arbitrary and open-ended government censorship authority.
quote:As you wish. My point remains that I oppose censorship of anti-semitism not because I think anti-semitism has any merit, but because I don't trust the state to wield the kind of power that would be neccessary to carry out the suppression.
Oh, and Stetson? Still not going there.
quote:
What no one has adequately explained is what the purpose of being able to portray Jews as hook-nosed shysters has within free speech.
How does this aid the market place of ideas? The only reason I can see for writing a law that permits this is to allow the open persecution of a minority.
quote:Firstly, your state unambiguously 'wields that kind of power' for a bazillion different crimes - including crossing the road in the wrong place.
Originally posted by Stetson:
My point remains that I oppose censorship of anti-semitism not because I think anti-semitism has any merit, but because I don't trust the state to wield the kind of power that would be neccessary to carry out the suppression.
quote:So, when I brought up AIDS Denialism as a comparative example of unregulated speech, you said that wasn't the issue and you were "not going there".
Firstly, your state unambiguously 'wields that kind of power' for a bazillion different crimes - including crossing the road in the wrong place.
quote:Well, as far as I can tell, you WERE saying that crossing the street and expressing opinions were similar, in terms of being things the state is granted power to regulate. So, yes, pointing out similarities is a comparison.
... and, unsurprisingly, the merest mention of jaywalking (which, yes, I find perverse and infantilising) means I am comparing jaywalking to free speech
quote:I think the difference between our positions is one of kind, not degree. There is a qualitative difference between saying "Don't tell people to physically attack Jews", and saying "Don't say hateful things about Jews."
Otherwise, you seem to want to place limits on free speech. You'd draw the line in different places to me, which is fine - you do so to suit your local conditions, we'll do so to suit ours. We both agree that some restrictions need to be placed on free speech.
What you do not do is defend the ideal of free speech, and I'm now struggling to work out why you think I want a job with MiniTrue when our positions are really very similar.
quote:Good comment.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is what always perplexes me. It seems as if the right to free speech is treated in a complete vacuum, as if one was standing in a forest speaking to the trees with no-one else around.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just to make it clear: you are defending the creation of anti-semitic caricatures of Jews that are solely drawn to promote the hatred of all Jews, because you think banning them is a violation of your right to free speech.
It reminds me of the fact that if you are on a private property like a farm, you can drive however you like and as fast as you like. There are no road rules.
But on public roads, when mixing with the rest of society, there are rules. The ways in which you can use your vehicle are curbed because of the possibility of causing damage.
It honestly surprises me just how casual people are about the damage of speech. I keep hearing about how Andrew Bolt was dragged to court and how dreadful that was. No-one ever seems to say how dreadful it was for the people named in his column to open up the newspaper that morning and find lies printed about themselves. Lies that they knew were being read across the country by thousands and thousands of people. Lies they still know will continue to be believed by lots of people, despite the court case.
quote:Exactly, which is why I emphasize the difference between speech used to express a racist opinion, and speech linked with a criminal act like inciting murder: the former is vile, but it's solely advocating an idea; the latter is an attempt to commit a crime by proxy.
Originally posted by Stetson:
[...] There is a qualitative difference between saying "Don't tell people to physically attack Jews", and saying "Don't say hateful things about Jews." [...]
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
