|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "The Left" cares too much about [insert cause here]
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
Soror, for as long as I've been alive - and that's over 60 years - Christians have been told by the press, by society in general and even by some politicians (both leftie and rightie) that its all very well for them to practise their religion (note, seldom do they use the more correct term - faith) in private, but under no circumstances are they to talk about it in public or bring it into the public domain. ...
Well, the public domain is full of people who aren't Christians and aren't really interested in Christianity, but Christians keep insisting on getting all up in the most personal and intimate aspects of our lives. Since there are places in the world where Christians are brutally persecuted, being asked to mind your own business seems pretty far down on the persecution scale to me.
You might want to check out politics in the USA, where practically every politician wears their Christianity on their sleeve and atheists rank lower than Muslims. I also note that the House of Lords always includes 26 bishops, but a rabbi or imam or guru would have to win a seat in the Commons or be appointed by the Monarch to get into Parliament.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
South Korea's Syngman Rhee regime was appalling too, but it was preferable to Kim Il Sung's, and without the rigidity of totalitarian communism to freeze it into a Cold War time warp, in time South Korea was able to evolve into a prosperous democracy.
South Korea didn't have the same economic downfall as North Korea because America was a better provider than China.
South Korea's evolution into a prosperous democracy was do to pressure from the left. Park Chung-hee did improve the country's overall economy whilst being a dictatorial douche. But the gap between rich and poor continued to widen, especially under Chun Doo-hwan.
Stability only really began with the Sixth Republic, (SIXTH!*)with the broadening of democratic, aka Lefty, policies.
*Six different republics since just after WWII. Yeah, Rhee led to such stability.
Not sure what point you are trying to make (because nobody is arguing either that post-war South Korean administrations were models of liberal democracy, or that pressures for democracy did not come from the left) but you certainly haven't succeeded in demonstrating that South Koreans were worse off under their less than ideal previous regimes than North Koreans were, and are, under the Kim dynasty.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Y is worse than X
Nope.
In this case, x is acceptable according to the tenets of liberal pluralism, and y is not.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Syngman Rhee may have been a bastard, but he resigned following popular protests amid disputed results of an election.
I don't think that will happen north of the 38th parallel any time soon. Kim-of-the-week would rather trigger Armageddon.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Rights always carry an implicit responsibility, to use those rights in a responsible manner. Sometimes when people start using those rights in an irresponsible manner it is necessary to be more explicit about what those responsibilities are - eg: by defining irresponsible uses.
The problem is that it's the government that defines "responsible" and "irresponsible".
Your current argument is that we should only have free speech so long as we use it in a manner that the government deems responsible. Let's see how that formulation works with some other substantive human rights:
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". As soon as a government with theocratic leanings comes in, what's to stop them from defining any religion/beliefs other than their own as an irresponsible use of that freedom?
- "Everyone has the right to a fair trial, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". What happens when the government decides that fair trials are irresponsible for certain alleged criminals? (the answer looks a lot like Guantanamo Bay) This also works for the right to freedom from torture.
- "Everyone has the right to life, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". So if the government thinks you're using your life irresponsibly, should they be able to deprive you of it?
Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".
You could have included Ky, and yes it would have been "starry-eyed and romantic", except that I never encountered anyone ever doing it.
Kaplan Corday, meet Kaplan Corday!
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Most of the [anti-Vietnam War] demonstrators, however, were were quite starry-eyed and romantic about Vietnamese communism ("Uncle" Ho was as creepy in kind, if not degree, as the Soviet Union's "Uncle" Joe) despite the fact that its victory would place the Vietnamese people under conditions (regimentation, loss of democracy and civil liberties) which they themselves would find intolerable.
When you characterize a North Vietnamese victory as something that would result in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" you're claiming that democracy and civil liberties were things enjoyed by the people of Vietnam prior to the end of the war. You can't lose something you never had.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.
No, that's bollocks. Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.
No, that's bollocks. Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
It is simply speech v action. Speech which incites action is not longer simply speech.
The idea that only complete freedom equals freedom is stupid. One person's freedom to do anything will impinge upon another's right to not have something done to them. There are always limitations, whether or not they are codified by law.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Not sure what point you are trying to make (because nobody is arguing either that post-war South Korean administrations were models of liberal democracy, or that pressures for democracy did not come from the left) but you certainly haven't succeeded in demonstrating that South Koreans were worse off under their less than ideal previous regimes than North Koreans were, and are, under the Kim dynasty.
Why would I try to prove that? Your apparent goal is to show that the right isn't so bad. You know, as long as it doesn't go all Hitler and everything. But you immediately push everything to dictatorial left in your comparisons. As if, once a person identifies as left, the slide to becoming Stalin is inevitable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If anyone is going get het up about "freedom of expression" they should consider libel and slander, specifically the legal threat and "super injunctions" used by the now exposed rich and famous to prevent the truth getting out.
[ 17. May 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
Then by your own definition, free speech is an oxymoron, doesn't exist, and I don't know what it is you're advocating.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
You are certainly not required to read what I write, but I did address the illogic of your position.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.
Yes, free will isn't 'really free', which shows how 'really free' is nonsensical.
By the way, this thread has gone the way of many about 'the Left', since the left is so wide, that it's difficult to generalize about it. The Vietcong wouldn't let me lend money at 15% interest, but Tony Blair would. Wow, isn't that profound?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
The usual things invoked in this context are "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" which is acceptable at an Electric Six concert or stage play of 'The Gadfly', but not otherwise and publishing troop movements during wartime which is acceptable to Julian Assange, I imagine, but not to anyone sensible. The reason these things are invoked is that they cause actual harm.
The argument over hate speech is that it is quite easy to brand "speech I do not approve of" as hate speech, whereas if legislation is to restrict speech it ought to be based on restricting or stopping actual harm. Arresting someone who makes a speech denouncing the Jews to a howling mob, with pitchforks and torches, outside a Synagogue is, I think, a legitimate restriction of speech. OTOH, the rhetoric of hate speech or the rhetoric of people using their speech in an irresponsible manner ought to be responded to by asking exactly what harm one is trying to prevent and how the ensuing restriction on speech is justified. Broadly speaking, in a free speech environment, the onus is on its enemies to justify its restriction rather than for speakers to justify their responsibility or lack of hate.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your apparent goal is to show that the right isn't so bad. You know, as long as it doesn't go all Hitler and everything.
Bullshit.
You are hopelessly confused.
My "apparent goal" (apparent to anyone who actually read what I wrote) was to make the point that right-wing authoritarian regimes in both Vietnam and Korea were thoroughly unpleasant, but neither as repressive, nor as resistant to improvement, as the communist alternatives.
Since you have this Godwinian obsession with dragging Hitler's name into the discussion, let me spell it out for you: neither North Korean nor Vietnamese communism, while both being on the murderous dictatorship spectrum, are remotely as bad as the Third Reich.
Happy?
quote:
But you immediately push everything to dictatorial left in your comparisons. As if, once a person identifies as left, the slide to becoming Stalin is inevitable.
Golly, you're right!
I identify as left-wing in some areas, such as the welfare state, and every time I think about progressive taxation, I get all overcome with a well-nigh irresistible urge to go all the way and carry out a Yezhovian or Berian purge!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
When you characterize a North Vietnamese victory as something that would result in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" you're claiming that democracy and civil liberties were things enjoyed by the people of Vietnam prior to the end of the war.
Nice try.
Restricted democracy (1967 elections) and civil liberties did exist in South Vietnam.
They were inadequate by Western standards, which is why no-one was enthusiastic about the South's successive regimes.
But such as they were, they were not only superior to anything under the Hanoi regime, but they disappeared completely with the communist victory, along with any realistic prospect of their evolving and improving over time.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.
There's a difference between constraints that exist because the universe doesn't work that way and constraints that only exist because the government says so. Or to put it another way, there's a difference between something being completely impossible and something being possible but prohibited.
Saying "you're not free to become a purple porcupine so therefore you shouldn't be free to say anything you want" is a total nonsense argument.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So do you think freedom of speech should protect shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a mob to kill?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So do you think freedom of speech should protect shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a mob to kill?
True and full freedom of speech would protect them. We do not have true and full freedom of speech.
The question then becomes how far we go in banning speech we don't like. I'm starting from the ideal that all speech should be free but some should be prohibited - with regret - where it causes or would reasonably be expected to cause direct harm* to someone else, which means I wouldn't go very far at all. Others, especially on the left, would go much further.
.
*= of course, ones definition of "harm" matters here as well. I don't count being offended as being harmed, for instance.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So all we're arguing about is the matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'freedom of speech' against us hideous lefties. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So all we're arguing about is the matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'freedom of speech' against us hideous lefties.
Sure. In the same way that when we argue about welfare spending it's just a matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'caring about the poor'.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
There's a common strand there in 'not throwing people under the bus' in order to get what you want.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a common strand there in 'not throwing people under the bus' in order to get what you want.
Criminalising people who say things that you find offensive definitely counts as "throwing them under the bus to get what you want". And yet somehow I have a feeling that's not what you meant...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Criminalising people who say things that you find offensive definitely counts as "throwing them under the bus to get what you want". And yet somehow I have a feeling that's not what you meant...
Criminalising people who'd throw other people under the bus while demanding their right to free speech?
Fuck 'em. They're dicks. We're not talking about 'freedom of speech' here. What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Are people "criminalised" for saying things which others find offensive but which do no harm?
When Katie Hopkins reportedly called migrants 'cockroaches' in a column headed "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", many people were offended. A UN human rights official said that articles like hers can affect how countries repond to migrants and that this "could sadly result in further massive loss of life.”
She was interviewed by the police, but was she charged with an offence? Apparently not. Did the Independent Press Standards Organisation uphold readers' complaints because it offended people (as opposed to simple inaccuracy)? Apparently not.
There was a petition for her to lose her job, but did she lose her job? Apparently she left the Sun to join the Daily Mail. Is being "criminalised" the same thing as 'being criticised and moving from one newspaper to another'?
It seems that some people claim that harmless and offensive speech is criminalised. However this example seems to suggest that potentially harmful and offensive speech is not criminalised.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Are people "criminalised" for saying things which others find offensive but which do no harm?
That depends on your view of "hate speech". As you point out, in the UK there is currently no criminal penalty for saying things that others find offensive (notwithstanding that being interviewed under caution by the police might look like a penalty in itself). But even a brief perusal of the commentary on that case would show you that there are a lot of people who would very much like to see one in place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.
How about responding to the rest of that paragraph: "We're not talking about 'freedom of speech' here. What you want is 'freedom from consequences'."?
Are you willing to take the rap if your 'freedom' causes a breach of the peace? Rights don't exist without responsibilities after all.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How about responding to the rest of that paragraph
It's perfectly clear what I'm talking about, and thanks to the bit I did quote it's now perfectly clear what Doc is as well.
It's not about fairness or rights, it's about fucking the dicks.
quote:
Are you willing to take the rap if your 'freedom' causes a breach of the peace? Rights don't exist without responsibilities after all.
Apparently you missed this post.
Or maybe this one. You say that rights don't exist without responsibilities, but nobody seems to talk about the responsibilities that can restrict someone's right to life.
Of course, it's hard not to conclude that all this talk of responsibilities basically boils down to a Ford-esque "you can say whatever you want as long as it's something I like". What comes next - political freedom for all, but those who choose to be right-wing will be lined up against the wall and shot?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.
You missed this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.
And it is exactly why your approach should never be implemented. Yes, freedom of speech should be protected and simply being offended shouldn't be the limit to that freedom. But the effects of speech should be.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
But such as they were, they were not only superior to anything under the Hanoi regime, but they disappeared completely with the communist victory, along with any realistic prospect of their evolving and improving over time.
This is an example of you doing what I accuse you of. A right wing, but not full on extreme as it could be, compared to a much more extreme left wing. You are not comparing the same things.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.
And inevitably, you try and evade the consequences of your notion of free speech. All you're doing here is being more concerned that your stated beliefs fall into the category of 'being a dick' than you are about the actual consequences for other people.
What would you call a person who prioritises their own rights over the rights of others, while prioritising others' responsibilities to them over their responsibilities to others? I think 'dick' is putting it quite mildly.
[ 18. May 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.
What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like. Every time an extra "responsibility" (read: restriction) is added to the right to free speech, that desire becomes less of a reality.
Don't ignore the erosion of free speech just because it's being done for reasons you agree with, because you never know when the political mood will change and you end up needing the protections you're happy to withdraw from "dicks".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.
There's a difference between constraints that exist because the universe doesn't work that way and constraints that only exist because the government says so. Or to put it another way, there's a difference between something being completely impossible and something being possible but prohibited.
Saying "you're not free to become a purple porcupine so therefore you shouldn't be free to say anything you want" is a total nonsense argument.
Yes, if you'll reread the very first sentence of the very post you quoted, you'll see I made that exact same distinction-- the government being "imposed by others" and my hyperbolic purple porcupine example being the "Laws of nature" side.
But my point was that there are ALWAYS constraints to freedom-- of both types. So pedantically insisting that ANY constraint = "not truly free" is, well, pedantic. Technically true but not really helpful, given that it is true of ALL freedom. So to insist on making that distinction each and every time the word freedom is used, especially as an argument against a particular constraint, is meaningless and unhelpful. Rather, we should debate whether a particular constraint (eg don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) is necessary or reasonable.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like.
Okay, can you come up with any actual examples of things you want to say here in the UK, but can't? Or are you constructing a whole field of scarecrows?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".
You could have included Ky, and yes it would have been "starry-eyed and romantic", except that I never encountered anyone ever doing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Restricted democracy (1967 elections) and civil liberties did exist in South Vietnam.
They were inadequate by Western standards, which is why no-one was enthusiastic about the South's successive regimes.
Can you make up your mind on this? It's a little disorienting to go from claiming that you've never encountered anyone claiming South Vietnam was a democracy that respected civil liberties to advocating the position that South Vietnam was a democracy that respected the civil liberties of its citizens. You can't say it's a claim no one would make and then make exactly that claim.
Well, I guess you can, since you have. It just kind of undercuts whatever point it is you think you're making.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.
What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like. Every time an extra "responsibility" (read: restriction) is added to the right to free speech, that desire becomes less of a reality.
Don't ignore the erosion of free speech just because it's being done for reasons you agree with, because you never know when the political mood will change and you end up needing the protections you're happy to withdraw from "dicks".
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
As a confirmed leftie my bottom line is that restrictions on exercising free speech should be defined to exclude speech that deliberately (that words there just because sometimes harm will be accidental) sets out to harm someone else. And, though government has a role in identifying forms of speech that any reasonable person should know would endanger or harm others, the ultimate arbiter of whether a particular example does or does not warrant sanction would be the courts (including international courts covering human rights). I admit that I struggle to see any logical alternative that would balance the rights of someone to speak freely and the rights of others not to suffer harm.
As for the specifics of what sort of things any reasonable person should be expected to know would cause harm to others, my list would include:
- Slander and libel that damages someone's reputation, especially when that results in a loss of income or other quantifiable detriment
- Propogation of falsehoods with the intent of influencing the actions of others to their own harm - that would, for example, include acts of deception to con people out of money. It could also cover things like claiming "£350m per week for the NHS".
- Incitement of others to act in a way harmful to others - whether that's encouraging others to physically harm someone, or to restrict their movement, opportunities for employment etc
- The shouting "fire" type of act
- Language that is intimidating, that creates fears in others
- And, I would include some forms of offensive language - though where the boundary is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is hard to define
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Don't ignore the erosion of free speech
No one is doing this. We are just pointing out that your concept of freedom of speech is ridiculous. A truly free society must have guidelines. This isn't a contradiction. The result of your definition of freedom is that only the strong/majority have freedom.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.
quote:
I admit that I struggle to see any logical alternative that would balance the rights of someone to speak freely and the rights of others not to suffer harm.
The problem is the definition of "harm". I'd agre with some items on your list, but emphatically not with others (especially the last one). And I'm sure there are some things that others might put on their list that you would emphatically not agree with. Who should decide? For that matter, who should decide the basis on which they will decide - the underlying assumptions are probably more important that the specifics.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But that last one
quote:
And, I would include some forms of offensive language - though where the boundary is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is hard to define
is highly variable in impact, depending on who you are.
You, a white, middle-class* male of Christian extraction will not be practically affected by people saying anything about your group.
However, other groups are different. Given the current climate, the bar for speech becoming harm is much lower for Muslims.
As Alan says, it is a difficult line to define. But it is less about what someone "agrees" with and more about the harm it does.
*Or close enough.
[ 18. May 2017, 18:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I'm thinking of the parallel legal concept of "negligence". For example, here in LA if you invite small children to your home for a party around an unfenced pool and fail to provide adequate adult supervision, you can be considered negligent if a child falls in and drowns, even though you probably had no intend to harm anyone. DUI is another example where the intent is not to harm, but the negligence is clear and brings criminal penalties. Similarly, hate speech could rise to the level of negligence if there is a reasonable expectation of harm even w/o intent.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Here in the US, hate speech is usually legal unless it makes explicit threats or directs people to commit harm against others. It is often against the rules of educational institutions, workplaces, etc., though. I think that, barring situations where tensions are so high that provisional restrictions on free speech are needed to prevent violence from breaking out all the time (and I can't think of anywhere in North America, Western Europe, or Australia/NZ where this is the case), saying hateful things should not in and of itself be illegal.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.
I agree, and I think this is probably the default among most college educated Americans.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.
I agree, and I think this is probably the default among most college educated Americans.
It isn't different from what anyone else here is saying. Though I do doubt the cases which meet MtM's standards would necessarily match to ours.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.
It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.
It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.
ISTM, America's isolation might be a key to understanding this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.
It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.
I like the American approach to this matter far more than the European one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.
It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.
I like the American approach to this matter far more than the European one.
As a lefty American I'm prone to agree-- but am also obligated to point out that having an "exception bucket" so small as to not disallow false facts spouted by politicians and some journalists is what got us into our current predicament.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
There's currently a free speech/hate speech case rumbling on in Scotland. YouTuber 'Count Dankula' created a video teaching his girlfriend's pug to be a Nazi (probably NSFW). I'd say it was tasteless but clearly a joke with no evidence of malice.
The video went viral: Dankula was arrested and is
being tried in the next few days. There's no jury, just a judge, and if found guilty the blogger faces up to 12 months in prison.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd agre with some items on [Alan Cresswell's] list, but emphatically not with others (especially the last one).
The one I'd be most concerned about is "Propagation of falsehoods with the intent of influencing the actions of others to their own harm - that would, for example, include acts of deception to con people out of money. It could also cover things like claiming "£350m per week for the NHS"."
While I understand people's frustration with bullshit, giving the government the role of Official Factchecker strikes me as as dangerous as hell.
Suppose it's 2027 and there have been a major string of Islamic suicide attacks. Scotland's devolved and the UK's governed by a new Conservative-Far Right/Fascist coalition. How much control over speech do you want to hand them?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
