Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Free Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:02 am

Redd wrote:
opticalilyushin wrote:
Redd wrote:


Do you have any idea what would happen with society? To be able to think, at all, you risk being divisive and discriminatory. You've pretty much just created the Stalinist Soviet Union with one sentence.


Freedom of speech, like all human rights should be respected and encouraged, but let's look at a scenario. An adult says "gays are disgusting!", their child hears them saying it, that child now has a form of hatred impressed on their mind, they go to school, they call other kids gay as it seems funny, they then tease, mock and punch the gay kid in class...so where do we draw the line? Or do you think hate speech, irrespecitve of the severity, is fine? Freedom of speech is ok until it results in physical, social or psychological abuse on the person or society in which the negativity is aimed at.


You can't shield society from bullying, the best we can do is teach our kinds respect for other people.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to think which is the freedom to offend. You cannot think without offending someone and we can't limit that freedoms without creating an Orwellian society legally punishing people for thought crimes and speech crimes.

If someone doesn't like Polish people (which I experience a lot while travelling, even thought I'm Canadian but live and work in Poland) I try to change their mind by them having the experience of meeting me. Not by putting them in jail and forcing something on them.


I appreciate the ethos of what you are saying, i really do, but using Poland as an example, are you saying you would still not draw a line (but still encourage such liberties) if a group of Neo-Nazis or anti-Semites stood in the main square of Warsaw to deliver an extreme hate speech? If it results in growing support, rallies and the endangering of others, you may well have a situation far worse than an Orwellian society, but these are 2 different extreme scenarios.

In the vast majority of cases teaching is indeed the best solution, but not everyone wants to be taught.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:16 am

Redd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Redd wrote:

So we'll be putting people into court for discussing something, to establish if they're guilty of a thought crime? Very Orwellian indeed.


Yeah, like for any other crime that requires a guilty mind. Not Orwellian at all and what happens in courts every day.
So you think murderers can't be prosecuted outside if Orwellian regimes as intend needs to be established?

Best regards
Thomas


so you're saying that murder and a controversial opinion are equal?


Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:22 am

StarAC17 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
What if the Hate Speech was uncertain. Would that be banned too?


It would be decided it the courts like libel.
Which is regulated speech also, you can't tarnish someones image and necessarily get off Scott Free.

There is a certain world leader who has sued repeatedly when he was made fun of or certain things about his businesses or net worth are questioned. That is well within this person's rights and the courts in nearly 100% of the instances have ruled against him or thrown the case out.


It is amusing that those pearl clutchers regarding “freedom of speech” so vehemently support that same leader who sued a COMEDIAN for $5 million because that COMEDIAN said he was part orangutan. That same leader has vowed to change laws to make it easier to sue people using their “freedom of speech”. Their cognitive dissonance gives me whiplash.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:43 am

SanDiegoLover wrote:
StarAC17 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
What if the Hate Speech was uncertain. Would that be banned too?


It would be decided it the courts like libel.
Which is regulated speech also, you can't tarnish someones image and necessarily get off Scott Free.

There is a certain world leader who has sued repeatedly when he was made fun of or certain things about his businesses or net worth are questioned. That is well within this person's rights and the courts in nearly 100% of the instances have ruled against him or thrown the case out.


It is amusing that those pearl clutchers regarding “freedom of speech” so vehemently support that same leader who sued a COMEDIAN for $5 million because that COMEDIAN said he was part orangutan. That same leader has vowed to change laws to make it easier to sue people using their “freedom of speech”. Their cognitive dissonance gives me whiplash.


or all those people that go apeshit crazy when a teacher correctly calls evolution a fact in the class room or have no problem legislating what a doctor has to tell their patients ....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13252
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:52 am

extender wrote:
Another crock of bovine excrement from the thin-skinned people whose feeling count more than facts.


Aren't facts opinions nowadays ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:27 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas


First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:38 pm

Redd wrote:
Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling


Well, they won´t. Judges will. As always. Those butthurt people here often go to the cops because they fell offended.... just to be told that isn´t offensive and why. Usually it boils down to "it matters jack all if you feel offended, it only counts if that person intended to offend you".

what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


In the US you have lifetime appointed judges deciding what you can and can not say, without recourse. Elsewhere those judges just get to tell legislators if they went to far. Much, much better.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:43 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Well, they won´t.
Thomas


They already have, take what's happening in the universities, professors losing their jobs, take the gender debate, we can no longer say ladies and gentlemen, and so on and so on. These are the fringes deciding, not the majority.

From the left, it's fascism under the umbrella of tolerance. Do as we say, fall in line, or we'll ruin your career and life. Now they want to add legal consequences because there has been a very vocal resistance to these actions.
 
extender
Topic Author
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:48 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Well, they won´t. Judges will. As always. Those butthurt people here often go to the cops because they fell offended.... just to be told that isn´t offensive and why. Usually it boils down to "it matters jack all if you feel offended, it only counts if that person intended to offend you".


Ever hear of judicial activism?

Redd wrote:
I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say.


This, FTW.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:12 pm

extender wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Well, they won´t. Judges will. As always. Those butthurt people here often go to the cops because they fell offended.... just to be told that isn´t offensive and why. Usually it boils down to "it matters jack all if you feel offended, it only counts if that person intended to offend you".


Ever hear of judicial activism?
.


Sure, they gave you "executive privilege" and just about every single thing you can not say in the US without the risk going to jail.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
extender
Topic Author
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:26 pm

That is where I have a problem. Judges don't give you a damned thing. They are simply supposed to interpret the law. They way they have been going, thanks, No. Apart from libel, slander and the call to violence, leave speech alone. On the flip side, anybody that tries to silence your speech, should be penalized. The slope will get slippery very fast.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8535
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:21 pm

extender wrote:
Yes, I know, I can't yell fire in a crowded theater


It’s not a law. Never was, either.


From The Atlantic:

“It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote”

. . .

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
. . .



https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
extender
Topic Author
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:42 pm

Fine and dandy. But certain speech could carry penalties, perjury for example, making a false police report, transmitting on a radio without have an operator's license... So forth and so on.

The crux of this thread, is speech that normal people wouldn't find "offensive," but certain SJW will start a holy war over.

For example, you see a wallet fall out of a guy's pocket, you would pick it up, and say, "excuse me Sir, you dropped this..." or something to that effect. Sir turns around and gets pissed because he considers himself a she, not a he. That isn't hateful.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10740
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:51 pm

PPVRA wrote:
It’s not a law. Never was, either.

From The Atlantic:
“It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote”
. . .
But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
. . .

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/

Interesting little read. Who knew that those using the defense of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" were equating to being able to jail someone for decrying the draft that wrote something non-violent aying for people to resist it.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:40 pm

Redd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas


First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd.

It seems the ones who want unfettered freedom of speech are those who also align with violent groups. Prove me wrong, but self titled "militias" go around demanding everyone let them have whatever they want. That no one should speak out against them because of freedom of speech. These groups seem to think that freedom of speech only goes one way: their way. They don't seem to want freedom of speech for counter protesters or anyone who knows their symbols are filled with hate, violence, and ignorance.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:42 pm

seb146 wrote:
Redd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas


First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd.

It seems the ones who want unfettered freedom of speech are those who also align with violent groups. Prove me wrong, but self titled "militias" go around demanding everyone let them have whatever they want. That no one should speak out against them because of freedom of speech. These groups seem to think that freedom of speech only goes one way: their way. They don't seem to want freedom of speech for counter protesters or anyone who knows their symbols are filled with hate, violence, and ignorance.


I don't know how you managed to extract painting swastikas on synagogues (by the way there are only Jewish synagogues) or hanging nooses from my statement, you really have a fantastical imagination. Very unsettling and twisted, sick and violent, but fantastical.
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
Redd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas


First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd.


"Straw Man" arguments both. Painting a swastika or any other symbol on a synagogue is the very definition of vandalism and is punishable by law. Hanging nooses might also be considered vandalism or at least evidence of trespassing depending on where they're hung, or possibly destruction of property depending on the manner in which they are hung. The symbols in your examples are irrelevant because their methods of expression are already illegal.

seb146 wrote:
It seems the ones who want unfettered freedom of speech are those who also align with violent groups. Prove me wrong, but self titled "militias" go around demanding everyone let them have whatever they want. That no one should speak out against them because of freedom of speech. These groups seem to think that freedom of speech only goes one way: their way. They don't seem to want freedom of speech for counter protesters or anyone who knows their symbols are filled with hate, violence, and ignorance.


You do realize that if you remove the word "counter" from the last sentence of that paragraph that you've just described Antifa to a "T" as well as the groups you intended to describe, right?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:15 pm

TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Redd wrote:

First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd.


"Straw Man" arguments both. Painting a swastika or any other symbol on a synagogue is the very definition of vandalism and is punishable by law. Hanging nooses might also be considered vandalism or at least evidence of trespassing depending on where they're hung, or possibly destruction of property depending on the manner in which they are hung. The symbols in your examples are irrelevant because their methods of expression are already illegal.


It has already been established that nooses and swastikas are signs of violence and intimidation. They are signs of who is violent and who is accepting. Painting a swastika on a synagogue or hanging a noose in a Black neighborhood sends a message to those groups that they are not acceptable and are not welcome. Violence follows those symbols because the people who celebrate those symbols are violent. Case in point:

TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
It seems the ones who want unfettered freedom of speech are those who also align with violent groups. Prove me wrong, but self titled "militias" go around demanding everyone let them have whatever they want. That no one should speak out against them because of freedom of speech. These groups seem to think that freedom of speech only goes one way: their way. They don't seem to want freedom of speech for counter protesters or anyone who knows their symbols are filled with hate, violence, and ignorance.


You do realize that if you remove the word "counter" from the last sentence of that paragraph that you've just described Antifa to a "T" as well as the groups you intended to describe, right?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
DeltaConnection
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:16 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:23 pm

No such thing as hate speech. Now, there are HATE CRIMES, and those aren't protected at all, but simply calling someone a "bad word" isn't a crime in terms of the law. Can you be fired, ridiculed, and banned for using such words? Yes. Can you or should you be in trouble with the law/government? Absolutely not.
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:20 am

seb146 wrote:
TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:

So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd.


"Straw Man" arguments both. Painting a swastika or any other symbol on a synagogue is the very definition of vandalism and is punishable by law. Hanging nooses might also be considered vandalism or at least evidence of trespassing depending on where they're hung, or possibly destruction of property depending on the manner in which they are hung. The symbols in your examples are irrelevant because their methods of expression are already illegal.


It has already been established that nooses and swastikas are signs of violence and intimidation. They are signs of who is violent and who is accepting. Painting a swastika on a synagogue or hanging a noose in a Black neighborhood sends a message to those groups that they are not acceptable and are not welcome. Violence follows those symbols because the people who celebrate those symbols are violent. Case in point:

TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
It seems the ones who want unfettered freedom of speech are those who also align with violent groups. Prove me wrong, but self titled "militias" go around demanding everyone let them have whatever they want. That no one should speak out against them because of freedom of speech. These groups seem to think that freedom of speech only goes one way: their way. They don't seem to want freedom of speech for counter protesters or anyone who knows their symbols are filled with hate, violence, and ignorance.


You do realize that if you remove the word "counter" from the last sentence of that paragraph that you've just described Antifa to a "T" as well as the groups you intended to describe, right?


Once again, Seb, you seem to display an inability to distinguish between speech and actions.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
Jetty
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:43 am

How will this law deal with religious texts? Publishing certain parts of *insert holy book of choice* on social media would certainly qualify as hate speech. Will that be banned as well? Or do religious people have a privilege because if they publish hate speech and claim it's their religious belief it's covered by 'religious freedom'?

Canada wouldn't be the first country where to say for instance "being gay is wrong" is allowed when it's based upon a religious belief and forbidden when it's based upon personal conviction. Knowing how ridiculously sensitive Trudeau is about religious minorities I'm afraid this is going to be the outcome here as well.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:48 am

TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
TSS wrote:

"Straw Man" arguments both. Painting a swastika or any other symbol on a synagogue is the very definition of vandalism and is punishable by law. Hanging nooses might also be considered vandalism or at least evidence of trespassing depending on where they're hung, or possibly destruction of property depending on the manner in which they are hung. The symbols in your examples are irrelevant because their methods of expression are already illegal.


It has already been established that nooses and swastikas are signs of violence and intimidation. They are signs of who is violent and who is accepting. Painting a swastika on a synagogue or hanging a noose in a Black neighborhood sends a message to those groups that they are not acceptable and are not welcome. Violence follows those symbols because the people who celebrate those symbols are violent. Case in point:

TSS wrote:

You do realize that if you remove the word "counter" from the last sentence of that paragraph that you've just described Antifa to a "T" as well as the groups you intended to describe, right?


Once again, Seb, you seem to display an inability to distinguish between speech and actions.


Why, then, do white supremacists not file lawsuits so they can paint swastikas in synagogues and hang nooses in Black neighborhoods? A symbol is speech, right? Those Jews and Blacks just need to suck it up and stop being all feely and just accept their place, right? Don't be offended by white supremacist symbols, right? Just ignore the hate. Look how that worked out in Pittsburgh and Charleston.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Free Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:24 am

opticalilyushin wrote:
TSS wrote:
opticalilyushin wrote:
Hate speech shouldn't be allowed or encouraged- it's as simple as that. Good on Trudeau for taking a stance on this.


Define "hate speech", please.


Anything that encourages division or discrimination of others, often based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.


Cool. We won’t have to hear people raging against conservatives anymore. In Canada anyway.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:04 am

TSS wrote:
Painting a swastika or any other symbol on a synagogue is the very definition of vandalism and is punishable by law.


its not when it is on the building across the street that you own..... effect on the Jewish community will be about the same.

Hanging nooses might also be considered vandalism or at least evidence of trespassing depending on where they're hung, or possibly destruction of property depending on the manner in which they are hung. The symbols in your examples are irrelevant because their methods of expression are already illegal.


We don´t need laws about hate speech, because we may be able to stick another applicable law to them for speech........ doesn´t sound very state of law to me.

you've just described Antifa to a "T" as well as the groups you intended to describe, right?


but only if you are going from the far right definition of what antif is of course and complete ignore that there is no such organisation....

extender wrote:
Fine and dandy. But certain speech could carry penalties, perjury for example, making a false police report, transmitting on a radio without have an operator's license... So forth and so on.

The crux of this thread, is speech that normal people wouldn't find "offensive," but certain SJW will start a holy war over.


aren´t you paranoid. Lots of countries have hate speech laws, in Germany you can actually go to jail for calling someone an asshole* while getting in physical contact, but no one has ever been jailed or fined for something that "normal people" didn´t find offensive, much rather people don´t get penalized for stuff that most people do find offensive.....

For example, you see a wallet fall out of a guy's pocket, you would pick it up, and say, "excuse me Sir, you dropped this..." or something to that effect. Sir turns around and gets pissed because he considers himself a she, not a he. That isn't hateful.


exactly, it isn´t He can be pissed all he/she/diverse wants to be..... nothing is going to happen. There would need to be an extremely narrow set of circumstances to make that hate speech. .....

best regards
Thomas

*and yet, because society and legal system can perfectly well handle the difference between speech used as speech and speech used as weapon, we still use "asshole" all the time.
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:10 am

seb146 wrote:
TSS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
It has already been established that nooses and swastikas are signs of violence and intimidation. They are signs of who is violent and who is accepting. Painting a swastika on a synagogue or hanging a noose in a Black neighborhood sends a message to those groups that they are not acceptable and are not welcome. Violence follows those symbols because the people who celebrate those symbols are violent. Case in point:


Once again, Seb, you seem to display an inability to distinguish between speech and actions.


Why, then, do white supremacists not file lawsuits so they can paint swastikas in synagogues and hang nooses in Black neighborhoods?


Because those are actions, not speech, see?

seb146 wrote:
A symbol is speech, right?


If you display it on yourself or on your own property, yes. If you paint, hang, or otherwise display it on someone else's property, that's vandalism.

seb146 wrote:
Those Jews and Blacks just need to suck it up and stop being all feely and just accept their place, right? Don't be offended by white supremacist symbols, right? Just ignore the hate.


Offensive or not, unpleasant opinions exist. Thinking you can make them go away by pretending they don't exist and forbidding people from expressing their hate is foolish because doing so only makes the hate fester and grow stronger.

seb146 wrote:
Look how that worked out in Pittsburgh and Charleston.


Go on...
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:16 am

The ACLU famously sued to allow neo-nazis to march throughout a mostly Jewish community in Michigan. How does the old quote go? "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:38 am

N583JB wrote:
The ACLU famously sued to allow neo-nazis to march throughout a mostly Jewish community in Michigan. How does the old quote go? "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."


Always a good one, though I can't remember whether it was Voltaire, Thomas Paine, or someone else who said it.

A more recent favorite in the same vein from George Carlin- "Political correctness is just fascism disguised as good manners".

Then there's the all-time classic that so many people seem to have forgotten today- "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:46 am

Please stay on topic, this thread is not about the US but Canada. Thanks.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:10 am

TSS wrote:
A more recent favorite in the same vein from George Carlin- "Political correctness is just fascism disguised as good manners".


and it may even matter if only "hate speech" and politically incorrect speech where the same thing...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/ ... alent.html

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:53 am

tommy1808 wrote:
and it may even matter if only "hate speech" and politically incorrect speech where the same thing...

Thomas


You're failing to consider that the goalposts have been moved. Talking about anything that does not suit the dogma of the far left is considered hate speech. Immigration, feminism, gender. If I don't agree with their orthodox views, pathological idealogues scream hate speech. Not much different than Fascist and Stalinist tactics.

Example from this forum and this topic:

seb146 wrote:
So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues or hanging nooses in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Knowing full well that both symbols equate violence and murder. But it is free speech so those Jews and Blacks just better suck it up and live with it. That sounds like it is your whole premise, Redd
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:03 am

seb146 wrote:
Redd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Goal post moving much?
We can establish intend, we have been doing so in legal proceedings since forever, and it has not created Orwellian societies.

Its not like its new, here offending someone comes with up to two years in prison if you do it right, and how did our supreme court put it, paraphrasing ~its obvious what is and isn´t a violation according to § 185 StGB. No Orwellian society needed. I would rather think that due to strict privacy laws it is less Orwellian here than most other places.

best regards
Thomas


First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues...


No, that's vandalism. Look it up.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:46 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Redd wrote:

First off, I'm not the one that used murder as an example, I just expanded on what you had used. Next, if anyone is moving goalposts, it's you. We're perfectly fine where we are and don't need to move the goalposts for hate speech.

Doing so carries a very real risk of stifling dialogue. There are issues in society that many on the fringes of the left or right will consider hate speech. I don't want the fringes of society controlling what we can or cannot say. We need to eliminate the fringes, that is the issue we should be talking about.


So free speech is painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues...


No, that's vandalism. Look it up.


Based on hate and ignorance and intimidation. Look it up.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:46 am

SQ22 wrote:
Please stay on topic, this thread is not about the US but Canada. Thanks.


What is also getting lost in this debate, is that “free speech” laws aren’t being changed in of themselves. The only thing that is being discussed is updating the regulations that ALREADY EXIST, to simply apply to social media companies that are already in place for other content providers (ie..film, radio, tv, print). Thus Facebook needs to remove illegal content or face a fine, just like a newspaper or television channel is required to do now. Of course, the title of this thread is rather misleading.

This is NOT about existing Canadian law. This is about the logical extension of applying laws evenly and fairly.

To those of you vociferously against the extension of the law....why should Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies not have to abide by the very same laws every other media company is required to?
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:01 pm

SanDiegoLover wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
Please stay on topic, this thread is not about the US but Canada. Thanks.


What is also getting lost in this debate, is that “free speech” laws aren’t being changed in of themselves. The only thing that is being discussed is updating the regulations that ALREADY EXIST, to simply apply to social media companies that are already in place for other content providers (ie..film, radio, tv, print). Thus Facebook needs to remove illegal content or face a fine, just like a newspaper or television channel is required to do now. Of course, the title of this thread is rather misleading.

This is NOT about existing Canadian law. This is about the logical extension of applying laws evenly and fairly.

To those of you vociferously against the extension of the law....why should Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies not have to abide by the very same laws every other media company is required to?


Fair enough. The difference, in the US at least, would be that film, radio, tv, print, etc. are considered "publishers" in that the owners/editors deliberately curate what is presented and have complete control over all content thereupon, and are responsible for same. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are considered "platforms" and by design are not responsible for any content thereupon as long as it does not violate established laws because all the content is created and provided by the platform users rather than the owners of the platform(s).

Canada does have existing "hate speech" laws which, as far as I can understand, boil down to "anything that might hurt someone's self-image and/or feelings, whether completely and provably true or not, is considered 'hate speech' and must be banned". That is where the problems arise because on a platform such as Facebook, etc. where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions one will undoubtably hear opinions that one does not like or agree with, and as Redd so succinctly put it-

Redd wrote:
Talking about anything that does not suit the dogma of the far left is considered hate speech. Immigration, feminism, gender. If I don't agree with their orthodox views, pathological idealogues scream hate speech. Not much different than Fascist and Stalinist tactics.


...And then what are perfectly reasonable opinions to some but not all will get censored.

Bad enough to get censored for having unpopular, or worse yet popular but "politically incorrect" opinions, but far, far worse to actually get penalized for participating in "wrongthink". Since Trudeau seems to be following the 1984 playbook quite closely, I wonder if one possible punishment for "hate speech/wrongthink" will be having a cage full of rats affixed to one's head until one sees the error of one's ways thought-wise as happened to Winston Smith?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10740
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:38 pm

TSS wrote:
Fair enough. The difference, in the US at least, would be that film, radio, tv, print, etc. are considered "publishers" in that the owners/editors deliberately curate what is presented and have complete control over all content thereupon, and are responsible for same. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are considered "platforms" and by design are not responsible for any content thereupon as long as it does not violate established laws because all the content is created and provided by the platform users rather than the owners of the platform(s).

Yes, and that is a looming debate nowadays: what is the difference between a platform versus a publisher? And if there an actual difference, where do the lines blur or cross? When a content provider is the primary and first way the public sees, finds or discovers an item, why are they not considered publishers? I mean are they claiming that all publishers have to do is only use third party authors, so they themselves are just platforms and not originators? Get rid of editors, and Voila! you are now safe? But the platforms have "scrubbers", people, algorithms, processes that manager the content they present. And these are active systems.

The controversy revolves around Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource- ... y-act-cda/
https://reason.com/2019/07/29/section-2 ... e-it-away/

As with any law, review and identifying possible needed changes as times change, is a smart and proper thing to do.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:26 am

TSS wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
Please stay on topic, this thread is not about the US but Canada. Thanks.


What is also getting lost in this debate, is that “free speech” laws aren’t being changed in of themselves. The only thing that is being discussed is updating the regulations that ALREADY EXIST, to simply apply to social media companies that are already in place for other content providers (ie..film, radio, tv, print). Thus Facebook needs to remove illegal content or face a fine, just like a newspaper or television channel is required to do now. Of course, the title of this thread is rather misleading.

This is NOT about existing Canadian law. This is about the logical extension of applying laws evenly and fairly.

To those of you vociferously against the extension of the law....why should Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies not have to abide by the very same laws every other media company is required to?


Fair enough. The difference, in the US at least, would be that film, radio, tv, print, etc. are considered "publishers" in that the owners/editors deliberately curate what is presented and have complete control over all content thereupon, and are responsible for same. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are considered "platforms" and by design are not responsible for any content thereupon as long as it does not violate established laws because all the content is created and provided by the platform users rather than the owners of the platform(s).


So, you are fine with extreme and violent images on social media? I had heard a statistic that Facebook is the largest trafficker of violent images of children on the world wide web, as opposed to the dark web. I want to find a number but I also do not want the FBI, CIA, CPS, and Interpol showing up at my door. I know there are some interesting consenting adult photos on Facebook if one has the time and inclination. If that is what a person is into, fine. As long as they are consenting adults.

TSS wrote:
Canada does have existing "hate speech" laws which, as far as I can understand, boil down to "anything that might hurt someone's self-image and/or feelings, whether completely and provably true or not, is considered 'hate speech' and must be banned". That is where the problems arise because on a platform such as Facebook, etc. where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions one will undoubtably hear opinions that one does not like or agree with, and as Redd so succinctly put it-

Redd wrote:
Talking about anything that does not suit the dogma of the far left is considered hate speech. Immigration, feminism, gender. If I don't agree with their orthodox views, pathological idealogues scream hate speech. Not much different than Fascist and Stalinist tactics.


...And then what are perfectly reasonable opinions to some but not all will get censored.

Bad enough to get censored for having unpopular, or worse yet popular but "politically incorrect" opinions, but far, far worse to actually get penalized for participating in "wrongthink". Since Trudeau seems to be following the 1984 playbook quite closely, I wonder if one possible punishment for "hate speech/wrongthink" will be having a cage full of rats affixed to one's head until one sees the error of one's ways thought-wise as happened to Winston Smith?


No one knows what offends someone else. Righties and MAGA fans are not offended by nooses or swastikas or burning rainbow flags. The bald person sitting next to me on the train might be offended by calling them "sir" so who knows? "Liberals" are offended by hate. I don't know when hate became good. But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
TSS
Posts: 3663
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:30 am

seb146 wrote:
TSS wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
What is also getting lost in this debate, is that “free speech” laws aren’t being changed in of themselves. The only thing that is being discussed is updating the regulations that ALREADY EXIST, to simply apply to social media companies that are already in place for other content providers (ie..film, radio, tv, print). Thus Facebook needs to remove illegal content or face a fine, just like a newspaper or television channel is required to do now. Of course, the title of this thread is rather misleading.

This is NOT about existing Canadian law. This is about the logical extension of applying laws evenly and fairly.

To those of you vociferously against the extension of the law....why should Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies not have to abide by the very same laws every other media company is required to?


Fair enough. The difference, in the US at least, would be that film, radio, tv, print, etc. are considered "publishers" in that the owners/editors deliberately curate what is presented and have complete control over all content thereupon, and are responsible for same. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are considered "platforms" and by design are not responsible for any content thereupon as long as it does not violate established laws because all the content is created and provided by the platform users rather than the owners of the platform(s).


So, you are fine with extreme and violent images on social media?


In general, yes, but with qualifications: If an image is particularly extreme or violent I appreciate having a generic icon to click on accompanied by a brief description in order to see the image rather than being confronted with a grisly image unexpectedly, but even in this context matters. For example, if I'm reading a review of the latest Italian horror film gore-fest then spectacularly gruesome images from said film are to be expected and I know what I'm letting myself in for.

seb146 wrote:
I had heard a statistic that Facebook is the largest trafficker of violent images of children on the world wide web, as opposed to the dark web. I want to find a number but I also do not want the FBI, CIA, CPS, and Interpol showing up at my door.


Those are highly illegal throughout most if not all of the developed world and I fully agree that such images should be taken down whenever found and the poster of such images banned from the platform.

seb146 wrote:
I know there are some interesting consenting adult photos on Facebook if one has the time and inclination. If that is what a person is into, fine. As long as they are consenting adults.


I'm of two minds on that one: On one hand, I imagine looking for "adult photos" on Facebook would be like ordering a steak at McDonald's... Even if you get what you're looking for it is all but guaranteed not to be good. If one seeks "adult photos" then sites such as Pornhub, XVideos, XHamster, and untold others provide far better quality and variety than Facebook ever could. On the other hand, if one wishes to "show off" one's own private assets to a select group then the aforementioned websites would be inappropriate because once an image is posted there it can be seen by anyone, so in that case I can see how the private collections or whatever Facebook calls them where one must obtain direct permission for viewing from the original poster might have value to members. As long as the "adult photos" on Facebook are behind some sort of permission wall or gatekeeping strategy and I can't see them unless I specifically ask to, then I'm fine with them. I just don't want to come across pics of the highlights from Grandma's nude dancing debut on her 72nd birthday unexpectedly.

TSS wrote:
Canada does have existing "hate speech" laws which, as far as I can understand, boil down to "anything that might hurt someone's self-image and/or feelings, whether completely and provably true or not, is considered 'hate speech' and must be banned". That is where the problems arise because on a platform such as Facebook, etc. where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions one will undoubtably hear opinions that one does not like or agree with, and as Redd so succinctly put it-

Redd wrote:
Talking about anything that does not suit the dogma of the far left is considered hate speech. Immigration, feminism, gender. If I don't agree with their orthodox views, pathological idealogues scream hate speech. Not much different than Fascist and Stalinist tactics.


...And then what are perfectly reasonable opinions to some but not all will get censored.

Bad enough to get censored for having unpopular, or worse yet popular but "politically incorrect" opinions, but far, far worse to actually get penalized for participating in "wrongthink". Since Trudeau seems to be following the 1984 playbook quite closely, I wonder if one possible punishment for "hate speech/wrongthink" will be having a cage full of rats affixed to one's head until one sees the error of one's ways thought-wise as happened to Winston Smith?


seb146 wrote:
No one knows what offends someone else.


Agreed.

seb146 wrote:
Righties and MAGA fans are not offended by nooses or swastikas or burning rainbow flags.


For someone who claims to preach tolerance, diversity, and understanding, you sure don't seem to hesitate to lump anyone who disagrees with you on one issue into easily categorized stereotypical groups, whether they belong to those groups or not, and then accuse them of approving of the very worst behavior exhibited by the most extreme members of those groups.

seb146 wrote:
The bald person sitting next to me on the train might be offended by calling them "sir" so who knows?


There are too many possible reasons to unpack why a bald person might be offended by being called "Sir", but for me that would be a clear sign that they have serious issues not of my making and any further attempts at conversation of any kind would be extremely ill-advised.

seb146 wrote:
"Liberals" are offended by hate.


Correction: "Progressives" are offended by disagreement with their dogmatic beliefs which they choose to label as "hate". Liberals, in the truest sense of the term which is derived from the root word "Liberty", are offended by censorship.

seb146 wrote:
I don't know when hate became good.


Hate has not become good, but far-left progressives have taken to calling any speech, opinion, or idea that goes against their beliefs "hate" in an attempt to get their opposition silenced. Disagreement is not "hate".

seb146 wrote:
But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.


Not exactly. The actual quote from Orwell's book 1984 is “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:19 pm

seb146 wrote:
"Liberals" are offended by hate. I don't know when hate became good. But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.


Seb, you my good sir, are not a liberal. You sit on the very end of the left spectrum. Hate to you is anything that you happen to disagree with, and you spread more hate than those you criticize... You've personally dropped innuendos that I'm an antisemite and a racist. You care nothing about open dialogue, only attacking people whom you don't agree with. If you were to be transported back in time, wearing an NKVD uniform, you'd be leading the charge executing the non-believers... At least that is the way you come off.

Liberals are willing to listen to all points of view and discuss them, even if that view doesn't happen to fit into their own box of reality. At least that is what liberalism used to be until the term had been hijacked.
 
extender
Topic Author
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:33 pm

Liberalism has switched poles.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:45 pm

Redd wrote:
seb146 wrote:
"Liberals" are offended by hate. I don't know when hate became good. But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.


Seb, you my good sir, are not a liberal. You sit on the very end of the left spectrum. Hate to you is anything that you happen to disagree with, and you spread more hate than those you criticize... You've personally dropped innuendos that I'm an antisemite and a racist. You care nothing about open dialogue, only attacking people whom you don't agree with. If you were to be transported back in time, wearing an NKVD uniform, you'd be leading the charge executing the non-believers... At least that is the way you come off.

Liberals are willing to listen to all points of view and discuss them, even if that view doesn't happen to fit into their own box of reality. At least that is what liberalism used to be until the term had been hijacked.


Yeah, one nice thing about the dumpster fire that is typically the Airliners comments section is that you can get a pretty good glimpse into which posters would have gleefully joined the Stasi or other like minded organizations back in the day.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22656
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:16 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Redd wrote:
seb146 wrote:
"Liberals" are offended by hate. I don't know when hate became good. But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.


Seb, you my good sir, are not a liberal. You sit on the very end of the left spectrum. Hate to you is anything that you happen to disagree with, and you spread more hate than those you criticize... You've personally dropped innuendos that I'm an antisemite and a racist. You care nothing about open dialogue, only attacking people whom you don't agree with. If you were to be transported back in time, wearing an NKVD uniform, you'd be leading the charge executing the non-believers... At least that is the way you come off.

Liberals are willing to listen to all points of view and discuss them, even if that view doesn't happen to fit into their own box of reality. At least that is what liberalism used to be until the term had been hijacked.


Yeah, one nice thing about the dumpster fire that is typically the Airliners comments section is that you can get a pretty good glimpse into which posters would have gleefully joined the Stasi or other like minded organizations back in the day.


Sorry, but I do NOT support racism. I do NOT demand statues of racist leaders. I am not offended by two people signing a piece of paper and then gathering their friends and families to celebrate that signing. Further, I do not give a rip what people do in the privacy of their homes. I don't even care that people march in the streets peacefully. Stashing weapons and telling others where the weapons are stashed is where I draw the line.

Now, tell me, how is any of that restricting free speech? Tell me how I am so liberal that I hate? Tell me how I want to see anyone silenced? You righties keep saying how "liberals" want to silence speech. Other than pointing to a couple of rallies in one city, we have yet to see that. So, please give examples.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:49 pm

seb146 wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
Redd wrote:

Seb, you my good sir, are not a liberal. You sit on the very end of the left spectrum. Hate to you is anything that you happen to disagree with, and you spread more hate than those you criticize... You've personally dropped innuendos that I'm an antisemite and a racist. You care nothing about open dialogue, only attacking people whom you don't agree with. If you were to be transported back in time, wearing an NKVD uniform, you'd be leading the charge executing the non-believers... At least that is the way you come off.

Liberals are willing to listen to all points of view and discuss them, even if that view doesn't happen to fit into their own box of reality. At least that is what liberalism used to be until the term had been hijacked.


Yeah, one nice thing about the dumpster fire that is typically the Airliners comments section is that you can get a pretty good glimpse into which posters would have gleefully joined the Stasi or other like minded organizations back in the day.


Sorry, but I do NOT support racism. I do NOT demand statues of racist leaders. I am not offended by two people signing a piece of paper and then gathering their friends and families to celebrate that signing. Further, I do not give a rip what people do in the privacy of their homes. I don't even care that people march in the streets peacefully. Stashing weapons and telling others where the weapons are stashed is where I draw the line.

Now, tell me, how is any of that restricting free speech? Tell me how I am so liberal that I hate? Tell me how I want to see anyone silenced? You righties keep saying how "liberals" want to silence speech. Other than pointing to a couple of rallies in one city, we have yet to see that. So, please give examples.


Lol, do you even follow politics seb? Have you heard of cancel culture? Or seen the instances where “anti fascist” mobs beat the sh*t out of “fascists” (fascists apparently including Vietnamese journalists)? Have you noticed hate speech laws seem to be encompassing more and more things to the point where average citizens can’t even keep up anymore?

A guy like Donald Trump didn’t get elected because the public thought the left was being TOO tolerant seb.
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:55 am

seb146 wrote:

Now, tell me, how is any of that restricting free speech? Tell me how I am so liberal that I hate? Tell me how I want to see anyone silenced? You righties keep saying how "liberals" want to silence speech. Other than pointing to a couple of rallies in one city, we have yet to see that. So, please give examples.


1. By attacking anyone you disagree with, labeling them with derogatory terms which are completely false.
2. You're not a liberal, you're not even close to being a liberal. You're fringe authoritarian left. You spit hate at everyone who doesn't fit neatly into your orthodox dogmatic view of the world.
3. Refer to point 1
4. You keep referring to me and others as righties which shows how deluded your view of the world is. I happen to be a plant-based (vegan) cyclist, environmental activist, run two businesses centered around reducing pollution and CO2 and plastic, attend every pride parade to show my support and have a good time (in a country where it can be dangerous to do so), almost never use my car due to my environmentally centered values, enjoy speaking with people from all backgrounds and political views. Starting to get annoyed with all of the extremists such as yourself calling yourself a liberal.
5. You've already been given plenty of examples, and then plenty more. You fail to respond to any of them directly.
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:57 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
seb146 wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:

Yeah, one nice thing about the dumpster fire that is typically the Airliners comments section is that you can get a pretty good glimpse into which posters would have gleefully joined the Stasi or other like minded organizations back in the day.


Sorry, but I do NOT support racism. I do NOT demand statues of racist leaders. I am not offended by two people signing a piece of paper and then gathering their friends and families to celebrate that signing. Further, I do not give a rip what people do in the privacy of their homes. I don't even care that people march in the streets peacefully. Stashing weapons and telling others where the weapons are stashed is where I draw the line.

Now, tell me, how is any of that restricting free speech? Tell me how I am so liberal that I hate? Tell me how I want to see anyone silenced? You righties keep saying how "liberals" want to silence speech. Other than pointing to a couple of rallies in one city, we have yet to see that. So, please give examples.


Lol, do you even follow politics seb? Have you heard of cancel culture? Or seen the instances where “anti fascist” mobs beat the sh*t out of “fascists” (fascists apparently including Vietnamese journalists)? Have you noticed hate speech laws seem to be encompassing more and more things to the point where average citizens can’t even keep up anymore?

A guy like Donald Trump didn’t get elected because the public thought the left was being TOO tolerant seb.


Cancel culture is nothing new. Just a fancy new term for tired, old, behavior that the religious right has tried for decades....it’s called “boycott”.. See Anita Bryant and her anti-gay crusading.

https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/



It’s tragic you fell victim to the “antifa “ nonsense. You are a smart guy so it pains me you were duped by that “reporter” being “attacked” (by a milkshake). Typical of wingnut antics even this milkshake “attack” was a setup. It was as transparent as the Jussie Smollent “attack” that wasn’t real.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... fa-877914/

You are falling for the death rattle of the old, straight, white, male, cry of aggrieved politics.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:45 pm

SanDiegoLover wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Sorry, but I do NOT support racism. I do NOT demand statues of racist leaders. I am not offended by two people signing a piece of paper and then gathering their friends and families to celebrate that signing. Further, I do not give a rip what people do in the privacy of their homes. I don't even care that people march in the streets peacefully. Stashing weapons and telling others where the weapons are stashed is where I draw the line.

Now, tell me, how is any of that restricting free speech? Tell me how I am so liberal that I hate? Tell me how I want to see anyone silenced? You righties keep saying how "liberals" want to silence speech. Other than pointing to a couple of rallies in one city, we have yet to see that. So, please give examples.


Lol, do you even follow politics seb? Have you heard of cancel culture? Or seen the instances where “anti fascist” mobs beat the sh*t out of “fascists” (fascists apparently including Vietnamese journalists)? Have you noticed hate speech laws seem to be encompassing more and more things to the point where average citizens can’t even keep up anymore?

A guy like Donald Trump didn’t get elected because the public thought the left was being TOO tolerant seb.


Cancel culture is nothing new. Just a fancy new term for tired, old, behavior that the religious right has tried for decades....it’s called “boycott”.. See Anita Bryant and her anti-gay crusading.

https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/



It’s tragic you fell victim to the “antifa “ nonsense. You are a smart guy so it pains me you were duped by that “reporter” being “attacked” (by a milkshake). Typical of wingnut antics even this milkshake “attack” was a setup. It was as transparent as the Jussie Smollent “attack” that wasn’t real.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... fa-877914/

You are falling for the death rattle of the old, straight, white, male, cry of aggrieved politics.


Cancel culture isn't real? Tell that to Brendan Eich, Brett Weinstein, Katie Herzog, Christina Hoff Summers, Michael Rectenwald, JK Rowling, Megan Neely, Ricky Gervais, Mandy Stadtmiller, Keri Smith, etc. I could point to infinite more examples. This is why Time Magazine is going out of business and why no one takes it seriously anymore.

Ngo is on video being attacked - it's documented on video. But "fake news" or something. And that's why Rolling Stone is going out of business and why no one takes it seriously either.

Next...
 
Redd
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Trudeau Wants To Penalize Certain Hate Speech

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:03 pm

SanDiegoLover wrote:
duped by that “reporter” being “attacked” (by a milkshake). Typical of wingnut antics even this milkshake “attack” was a setup. It was as transparent as the Jussie Smollent “attack” that wasn’t real.


Yeah, that was quite the milkshake..... :rotfl:

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sokes and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos