British judge rules atheists prob illegal - Page 3 - Religion, God, and Theology

I don't think there is a need to "act all surprised" or like if something must be "crystal clear". Government is based on application of force. Thus any discussion on government is always a discussion on where the boundaries should go, not if there should be boundaries.

Presumably you would disagree with a poster stating "shoot green people in the head, get a free car" being legal, but you would disagree with a poster stating "green people are subhuman" being illegal.

It doesn't take a lot of analysis to see that these statements are related.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 01:38 PM

#52

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

I'm curious to know why you thought I would want the government to censor that.

Honestly I don't think I can answer that at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

Was I really not clear on my view before? I mean, what else was I supposed to have meant when I said, "If you make the government ban hateful speech then I think you give the government too much power. It's better to attack the hate through other means. ...I would love for them to stop doing these things, but I would hate for the government to force them to stop." ?

Yes you were clear.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 03:14 PM

#53

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

I'm curious to know why you thought I would want the government to censor that. Was I really not clear on my view before? I mean, what else was I supposed to have meant when I said, "If you make the government ban hateful speech then I think you give the government too much power. It's better to attack the hate through other means. ...I would love for them to stop doing these things, but I would hate for the government to force them to stop." ?

So I understand you not wanting the government to legislate for merely speaking of hate but I'm interested in what other means you consider appropriate for addressing it.

If you are aware of them do you think that the kind of successes enjoyed by the SPLC in it's cases against hate groups suggest that there's already a legislative framework to tackle hate crimes rather than granting government agencies the opportunity to go for them at source?

Quote

03-26-2013 , 03:35 PM

#54

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 11,123

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

If you are aware of them do you think that the kind of successes enjoyed by the SPLC in it's cases against hate groups suggest that there's already a legislative framework to tackle hate crimes rather than granting government agencies the opportunity to go for them at source?

Well I hadn't heard of the SPLC before now, and all I know of it comes from reading parts of the wikipedia article. So maybe I don't really understand what your question is?

Quote

03-26-2013 , 03:41 PM

#55

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Sorry the question is if governments shouldn't legislate against hate speech what the other measures are you'd support to attack hate?

Quote

03-26-2013 , 04:39 PM

#56

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 11,123

Protests, education, advertisements, facebook campaigns, etc?

Quote

03-26-2013 , 04:48 PM

#57

Jeedz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,526

Given how bad the situation was for minorities in the 60s-80s period in terms of hate crimes etc it may have been necessary to legislate against hate speech.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 05:04 PM

#58

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

But they didn't.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 05:28 PM

#59

Jeedz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,526

I thought the first hate speech acts were introduced in this era? I've forgotten what I'd learnt in criminal law at uni.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 05:29 PM

#60

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

Protests, education, advertisements, facebook campaigns, etc?

So I think they are all valid and I don't particularly want to take this off topic. I understand your reasons to oppose legislation that curtails free speech though I disagree.

I'm also aware that this case doesn't represent a curtailment of free speech.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 06:16 PM

#61

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Restricting 'hate speech' is one thing. Defining 'hate speech' in such a way that 'Hey did you know there are courses that can help you pretend you're not gay' qualifies is another.

"Cigarettes are awesome and make you look cool" is definitely not hate speech, but it's illegal as all hell to put on a billboard. That's the way through this issue.

Quote

03-26-2013 , 06:28 PM

#62

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Agree with all of that.

Quote

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last