I had no idea civil rights were imbued by geography.
1 Like
āRightsā are entirely limited by borders
Absolutely. We should never have interfered with the Nazis, and Stalin and Pol Pot were good guys. They were absolutely in a position to limit peopleās rights within their borders.
1 Like
As long as they donāt intrude on our borders, then we have to intervene.
1 Like
Rather Than ad absurdo reductum just look at how different nations address ārightsā
Badly, more often than not. Absolutely terribly. And thereās nothing absurd about the idea of rights as inherent to humanity. The idea that law gives rights is religious more than anything, and I donāt buy into that crap. But youāre more than welcome to bend over as far back as youād like to make a consistent framework for human and civil rights based on nationalism. Iām not going to pretend I have high expectations for your efforts.
1 Like
To the French government: You cannot use the Ring!
OTOH, I disagree with Dieudonneās opinions on triangles.
Whatās that? It was a different Dieudonne?
I donāt quite know what you think Iām motivated by, but Iām not talking about what should be, Iām just saying how it is.
I think the most depressing anecdote about the rate of French antisemitic violence Iāve heard was when a kosher sushi restaurant, ZekaĆÆ, in Paris, was firebombed back in 2014; the firebomb bounced off the hardened tempered glass of the storefront, which had been installed after the previous time the restaurant had been attacked.
1 Like
I find it easy to believe that France is using the attacks last year as a justification to oppress Muslims - France has been pretty oppressive towards Muslims for a while now. But I get really tired of hearing about free speech as if it is the most important thing in society. The protection of your free speech is always going to be protected by a competent judiciary, not by absolutist laws.
All rights are balanced against responsibilities. The freedoms in the US bill of rights - as interpreted by politicized courts - seem to be speeding the country towards being a police state rather than protecting the people from that. Right now itās only a thin thread away from protecting āIāll give you $100k if you vote for this billā as free speech.
Speech is action. āIf you mow my lawn Iāll pay you $100ā isnāt an expression of an idea, it is a contract. āI now pronounce you [x] and [y],ā is the act of marrying two people. Although Iāve read that the actual āFireā-in-a-crowded-theatre example was flawed in itās seminal usage, yelling āFireā in a crowded place creates a serious risk of stampede and injury. āHereās my number, call me around 2:00ā is the act of detonating that cell-phone controlled bomb.
We ought to be careful about wishy-washy arguments suggesting that some kind of speech causes harm. But there is no slippery slope between making it illegal to offer someone $10k to kill your spouse and making it illegal to say that we ought to stop bombing foreign nations. We need judges who are competent to balance harms making these determinations.
4 Likes
In the U.S., there are generally five categories of exceptions to free speech:
- obscenity
- defamation
- fraud
- incitement
- speech integral to criminal conduct
I think that thatās a good list of the speech that should be limited.
Well, but these days most people would argue against obscenity as a good reason. And people get into a tizzy about banning speech that speaks ill of Jews or Muslims when I donāt see how itās such a different category than defamation (itās just defaming a group rather than a person) and often borders on incitement. There really arenāt clear-cut answers.
3 Likes
[quote=āanon50609448, post:32, topic:71764ā]
Well, but these days most people would argue against obscenity as a good reason.[/quote]
Perhaps, or perhaps the definition of what is āobsceneā has just shifted a bit.
IANAL, but I think that the problem may be a misconception of the legal definition of ādefamationā - itās more than just āspeaking ill.ā Statements of opinion are usually protected under defamation law - only definite, false statements of fact are generally covered, and even they are usually protected if you can source that you got those facts from someone else. Most proposed āhate-speechā laws are much stricter than that standard, and I donāt think they should be.
Again, IANAL, but I think the legal definition of incitement is not, āWe need to do something about this,ā itās āwe need to get together tonight to burn down their mosqueā - it needs to be a specific, deliberate call to criminal action.
In my opinion, if there isnāt a clear-cut answer, we should err on the side of āmore speechā as a response to speech, as opposed to banning the speech.
But what is the justification for this? If I tell a specific lie then you can sue for me for telling it, but if Iām unspecific or non-falsifiable then you canāt. Why is that line important? Why is āObama had David Bowie killed,ā something that ought to be prohibited while, āIām not saying Obama had David Bowie killed, but if you think it about it, it makes sense.ā is not? Is there some reason to think that the former is more harmful to the reputation of the target? I donāt see why that line is defensible. Why isnāt āmore speechā the answer to direct lies when telling the truth can counter a lie just as easily as it can counter a misleading suggestion?
Again, I donāt see how that line is defensible. If I go on certain message boards and start talking about how woman X living at address Y cheated on me then that woman will start getting death and rape threats. I know that. So why am I not culpable for doing that? Are we going to let people off if they were talking in code because they can just say, āWell, I said to deliver flowers to his wife, not to kill him.ā You can know how you will be understood without saying the actual words.
These exceptions are just made up by people, and I donāt think they are easy to defend.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
