[Roosh]

It may be surprising to Americans that in some European countries you're not allowed to say or write "hatred" against specific ethnic groups. Do you believe this is a model that the US should follow?

[Moma]

(04-04-2012 04:58 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It may be surprising to Americans that in some European countries you're not allowed to say or write "hatred" against specific ethnic groups. Do you believe this is a model that the US should follow?

Are Americans allowed to say or write hatred against ethnic groups? I wasn't even aware that this was disallowed in Europe. Which European countries are these and against which specific ethnic groups are hatred comments forbidden against?

[MikeCF]

I'd have much less of a problem with those speech restrictions if they were equally applied.

Muslims threaten to blow up "infidels" for drawing cartoons, to the political elites, is less of a problem than when infidels insult the prophet Mohamed by drawing said cartoons.

[Roosh]

Moma: yes we can say "All Mexicans are [negative comment]" and nothing will happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17530450

Quote:

Liam Stacey sobbed as he was jailed after drunkenly sending a series of abusive tweets in the aftermath of Bolton player Fabrice Muamba's collapse. Having charged him under the Crime and Disorder Act with making racially aggravated comments, the Crown Prosecution Service said it hoped he served as a warning to people posting comments online.

Quote:

Last month, Sunderland fan Peter Copeland, 29, received a four-month suspended jail sentence after posting racist comments aimed at Newcastle United fans, under the Malicious Communications Act.

Some more details from a German article..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/euro...26,00.html

Quote:

The new law also calls for EU member states to impose prison sentences of up to three years on those convicted of denying genocides that have officially been recognized by the International Criminal Court, such as the Shoah during World War II and the 1990s massacre in Rwanda.

[gringochileno]

In general I agree with the principle that freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, means that we need to tolerate the speech of those who offend us most. It even makes me uneasy that people are routinely fired from their jobs for making statements that are deemed offensive. Even though it's private companies that are doing the firing, I still don't like it.

That said, there may be situations where an exception is justified due to unique circumstances. Holocaust denial in Germany might be one such exception.

[Basil Ransom]

Quote:

Do you believe this is a model that the US should follow?

No.

Invariably, someone will make a legitimate criticism of an ethnicity, and he will be charged for the offense of telling the truth. It happened to Michel Houellebecq.

Despite not having laws against denying the Holocaust here, we don't have a surfeit of Holocaust deniers. Certainly not amongst anyone who actually matters. I'd also be concerned that making it illegal gives it some 'street cred' and an appearance of truth - "if it weren't true, why would they make it illegal to talk about it? They're just worried about us finding the truth out."

Edited for clarity.

[Asmodeus]

As long as it is on public property or in an open forum. I don't think people have the right to go onto private property, say whatever they want, then scream "free speech". Better to have people pissed off than silenced.

[DareP]

Yes.

It's not my responsibility to safeguard other people's egos or experiences. If I say something racist about a black person and he feels hurt, a large part of that is his issue. He still has unresolved issues around his race, which will be detrimental to his life even when it's not being brought up.

I'm Asian. Someone can say a racist comment towards me and it won't really register. I know I'm successful, intelligent and attractive and generally like who I am.

Laws against racism essentially give power to affect someone's else's experience to the person making the comment. It assumes that people being talked about have no power over their own experience and that they can easily be victimized.

So, in spirit I'm against those laws. Also, I like free speech and believe it's one of the core tenants of our country.

[Timoteo]

France pursues these types of things aggressively. The last two prominent cases were involving the actress Bridget Bardot, who same very public statements critical of the practice of Islam, and more recently the fashion designer John Galliano, who got caught on tape making anti-semitic remarks to a patron in a restaurant or coffee shop - I can't remember which. Bardot was charged and fined, as was Galliano. He also lost his job as head designer at Dior because of it.

While we do have freedom of speech, it isn't absolute. Inflammatory speech is not protected, nor are making public statements about someone that obviously aren't true (slander). You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater because it could cause injury. Just the same, we as individuals are free to say what we want, but with the understanding that your speech has certain consequences (say the wrong thing to or about the wrong person, and it could cost you your job). I wouldn't want to see us use Europe as the standard for how we police speech. I think we deal with it just fine as is.

I see things this way - thoughts can become speech, and speech can become action. It's when it reaches that final stage that it becomes problematic. We all have the power to shout down certain speech we don't like - everyone has that right.

[DareP]

Quote:

I see things this way - thoughts can become speech, and speech can become action. It's when it reaches that final stage that it becomes problematic. We all have the power to shout down certain speech we don't like - everyone has that right.

That's a pretty dangerous line of thinking.

Does that mean men and women shouldn't talk about rape fantasies because that could turn into reality?

Does that people shouldn't talk about suicide to others, as it could lead to them committing suicide?

It's a slippery slope. Who decides that speech is "safe" and what kinds of speech could lead to dangerous actions?

Also, not allowing speech could cause action. A neo nazi might be content making racist comments against Jews. Block that outlet however, and he may just bottle up all those emotions for years then come blazing into a synagogue.

Again, who gets to make the decision of which is safer than the other? It's not something you can really prove objectively with data.

At the end of the day, I think it's very dangerous when the government tries to predict what'll happen and apply pre-emptive restrictions. It's dangerous in many ways. I say free speech is good, then only create laws when it's clear something's wrong. You don't do it before.

[Timoteo]

(04-04-2012 06:02 PM)DareP Wrote:  

Quote:

I see things this way - thoughts can become speech, and speech can become action. It's when it reaches that final stage that it becomes problematic. We all have the power to shout down certain speech we don't like - everyone has that right.

That's a pretty dangerous line of thinking.

Does that mean men and women shouldn't talk about rape fantasies because that could turn into reality?

Does that people shouldn't talk about suicide to others, as it could lead to them committing suicide?

It's a slippery slope. Who decides that speech is "safe" and what kinds of speech could lead to dangerous actions?

Also, not allowing speech could cause action. A neo nazi might be content making racist comments against Jews. Block that outlet however, and he may just bottle up all those emotions for years then come blazing into a synagogue.

Again, who gets to make the decision of which is safer than the other? It's not something you can really prove objectively with data.

At the end of the day, I think it's very dangerous when the government tries to predict what'll happen and apply pre-emptive restrictions. It's dangerous in many ways. I say free speech is good, then only create laws when it's clear something's wrong. You don't do it before.

You cherry-picked that last bit and went on a riff. I was clear on how I stand on speech. You created scenarios unrelated to the context of how we were discussing speech. Bigoted or hateful speech are obviously verbalizations of how that person thinks. When they take it to the extent when they physically harm someone because of those thoughts and words, it is a problem. That's what I meant.

Many seem to interpret "free speech" to mean that I can say whatever I want, but it has to go unchallenged. If someone challenges or criticizes a statement, they complain that somehow their rights to free speech has been infringed. Free speech extends both ways.

[DareP]

Quote:

You cherry-picked that last bit and went on a riff.

Sorry - I scanned rather than read. ;/

Quote:

Many seem to interpret "free speech" to mean that I can say whatever I want, but it has to go unchallenged. If someone challenges or criticizes a statement, they complain that somehow their rights to free speech has been infringed. Free speech extends both ways.

Free speech means the ability to challenge as well. Free speech just means it's not illegal, it doesn't mean anything else.

[Hencredible Casanova]

They do this in Brazil and some other countries. For example, in Brazil if a white person says something derogatory about black people or Japanese people, that person can become arrested immediately and jailed until trial. There's ads on buses, sidewalks, etc. informing people of what number they can call if they want to report any kind of discrimination or racially-motivated insults.

Personally, I love our free speech protections in the US. I wouldn't want this country to go that route. The last thing we need, especially right now, is letting big brother take away more of our freedoms.

[soup]

People should have the right to make hate speech and love speech.

Anything speech can be interpreted or framed as racist, so, if you start making limitations on racist speech, you are potentially putting limitations on all speech.

It's like this scene from "Storytelling" - is this kid implicitly endorsing Hitler, and is he thus making a racist comment?

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/6arjac/...for-hitler

[Hencredible Casanova]

I think our free speech laws are the reason why we're so damn PC in the US. I think we're way more politically correct than the cultures that outlaw certain forms of speech. With great freedom comes great responsibility and, for the most part, people in the US show restraint. People, especially those in public positions, know they could lose their jobs by just running off their mouths about a group of people in a way that could be portrayed as offensive.

[assman]

This is just more political correctness. This is how the Marxists win.

When your ideology is bankrupt (Marxism, feminism, etc.), you need to curtail free speech. When your ideology is robust, you welcome free speech and criticism

If someone makes a derogatory comment about a race, and the listener knows this comment is not based in truth, does it not make the speaker sound like a fool, and reduce his influence? And if it is true, why are we silencing the truth and spreading pretty lies?

[Screwston]

Yeah, they should. I don't think anyone has ever tried to say some slick shit to me in person. Its always online where boys have bowling size balls and let it all out.

[Blanco]

(04-04-2012 04:58 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It may be surprising to Americans that in some European countries you're not allowed to say or write "hatred" against specific ethnic groups. Do you believe this is a model that the US should follow?

Absolutely not, that is why the USA is the USA - Frist amendment and freedom of speech all the way baby! USA is not Europe and I have no desire to see my home country become Europe 2.0. We shall maintain the right to hate whoever we want!

[Blackhawk]

Europe has a long history of secret police monitoring the public and arresting people for printing forbidden pamphlets or speaking against the rulers and their favorites.

Frankly, every time I hear this, I think of the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang: Some ugly old world thug with warts on his nose wheeling around a horse drawn cage in the night and carting off villagers for speaking against the Duke or some such nonsense. These forbidden speech police are the same ilk. Coming in the night to cart off people for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed.

[Only One Man]

As long as you're not threatening or inciting violence against someone, you should be free to say whatever racist shit you want. The consequences should and will come from things besides the law, such as getting the shit kicked out of you, getting fired, ect.

[ZamboniJones]

Anytime the government starts dictating what people can and can't say, trouble is brewing.

People can say whatever awful shit they want, its the public that should scorn you for it, not the government.

[durangotang]

deleted...double post sorry.

[durangotang]

Absolutely, people should have the right to express their opinions even if it offends other people. Sticks and stones.

I am opposed to enactment of hate crimes and cannot stand political correctness. Who cares what someone else says? Grow thicker skin if you don't like it. Besides these kinds of laws begin for something we can all generally agree is not something good (i.e. racists comments), only their scope expands. It is a form of totalitarian thought control frankly and tolerance is thrown out the window ironically in the name of tolerance.

I have posted this before, because it is one of the best 20 minutes you could spend to get up to speed on political correctness. Frankly, it is essential.

[raliv]

Denying freedom of speech is highly offensive to my American sensibilities and nature. To quote Neal Boortz, "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."

The real issue is WHO gets to decide what is hate speech or not...and why.

[Hotwheels]

(04-04-2012 08:22 PM)ZamboniJones Wrote:  

Anytime the government starts dictating what people can and can't say, trouble is brewing.

People can say whatever awful shit they want, its the public that should scorn you for it, not the government.

Exactly. Free speech is essentially self policing. Say something from way out in left ( or right as it may) field and someone will call you on it.

Speech policing is one hell of a slippery slope, as the next step is the "Thought Police".

Since free speech is one of the tenants this country was founded upon, I cannot see it's repeal happening here. I don't even see the many socialists, ie: left wingers, here pushing for it in any meaningful way.