Student wins freedom of speech case - is awarded $1 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583095]Nobody wants to start arresting people for what they think, but for discriminating without proper basis. What's so wrong about restricting free speech to not include hate speech? It's already being done in pretty much most of the world, and it's working fine.[/QUOTE] It's an arbitrary restriction that could allow for needless hardship.With restrictions like that, one day you call someone an asshole and the next thing you know your being investigated for possible violence. Besides different words mean different things to different people. What's deemed offensive in one part of a country can be a term of endearment in another. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583095[editline]25th July 2013[/editline] Bigotry, sexism and such is not only harmful because it encourages physical abuse. Employers chose not to hire people because of their faith, skin colour, life-style, sexuality and sex to give an other example.[/QUOTE] There is a difference between talking and acting and just because words can be seen to promote negativity shouldn't mean they should be banned. However when you make threats, you should be investigated.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583095] Bigotry, sexism and such is not only harmful because it encourages physical abuse. Employers chose not to hire people because of their faith, skin colour, life-style, sexuality and sex to give an other example.[/QUOTE] What is seen as sexist or bigoted today may not have been seen that way in the past and what is accepted today may not be in the future, restrict free speech and you invite the elite in power to control people.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41583225]It's an arbitrary restriction that could allow for needless hardship.With restrictions like that, one day you call someone an asshole and the next thing you know your being investigated for possible violence. Besides different words mean different things to different people. What's deemed offensive in one part of a country can be a term of endearment in another.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about what's offensive or not and I'm not talking about what you say to some random guy on the street, although that could go under other laws and be enhanced as a hate crime. I'm talking about public statements.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582976]That's not at all what I'm talking about. Let me make it a bit more clear. Racist group A does not go out publicly and does not use hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group A does not gather as many recruits. Therefor group A doesn't do as much harm because it is smaller. Racist group B goes out publicly and uses hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group B gets more people than group A. Therefor group B is bigger and does more harm when the group acts. Did that make it clear?[/QUOTE] Rebel group A does not go out publicly and does not protest the government to gather recruits. Rebel group A does not gather as many recruits. Therefore group A doesn't overthrow an oppressive government because it is smaller. Rebel group B goes out publicly and protests the government to gather recruits. The oppressive government declares that Rebel Group B isn't under the protection of free speech (because they might hurt someone in their revolution) Therefore group B doesn't overthrow an oppressive government because they are all arrested due to an infringement on the right to free speech.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582708]just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing[/QUOTE] The US doesn't have unrestricted freedom of speech, nowhere does that exist except when you're alone

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583318]I'm not talking about what's offensive or not and I'm not talking about what you say to some random guy on the street, although that could go under other laws and be enhanced as a hate crime. I'm talking about public statements.[/QUOTE] As long as you aren't breaking laws or threatening physical violence then you are doing nothing wrong. When we restrict speech we allow ourselves to be artificially controlled by what another entity deems acceptable and that is not free speech.

I don't this qualifies as hate speech because it was neither spoken by someone in a position of power over anyone else AND it was not done in an attempt to intimidate/threaten or instigate intimidation or threatening behavior. In fact, those two aspects were introduced into the situation by the person against bullying! How ironic is that? The teacher(ie power in the class) used intolerance against homophobes to single out and banish those who were marginalized.

at this point in time we are currently in the lower left hand corner of this chart: [img]http://thoughtsaloud.com/images/political_circle_small.jpg[/img] any real attempts to abridge freedom of speech for PC reasons or religious reasons moves us closer to tyranny.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41583361]When we restrict speech we allow ourselves to be artificially controlled by what another entity deems acceptable and that is not free speech.[/QUOTE] This is such a poor argument. Restricting hate speech doesn't lead to dictatorship, the argument would be valid if we were living in the medieval times but the fact is in most of today's society, atleast in most of the European countries, restricting free speech has only made society better. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Sweden[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Switzerland[/url]

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583482]This is such a poor argument. Restricting hate speech doesn't lead to dictatorship, the argument would be valid if we were living in the medieval times but the fact is in most of today's society, atleast in most of the European countries, restricting free speech has only made society better. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Sweden[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Switzerland[/url][/QUOTE] remember, the size of a country affects how it reacts to culture differently.

I'm not attacking minorities, I'm not looking to take away the rights from minorities - Just some very specific minorities and for very good reasons, not just because they "disagree" with me.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583482]This is such a poor argument. Restricting hate speech doesn't lead to dictatorship, the argument would be valid if we were living in the medieval times but the fact is in most of today's society, atleast in most of the European countries, restricting free speech has only made society better. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Sweden[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Switzerland[/url][/QUOTE] Yes! Sweden is at the forefront of social progression! Every country should strive to better themselves to the standards of Sweden. Sweden, YES! Swedes are not even an ethnic group in Sweden and therefore not protected by laws against hate speech. Who defines what is hate speech and what isn't? The controlling entity. But let's give up more rights because what could go wrong, the government knows what's best and wants it for us.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583482]This is such a poor argument. Restricting hate speech doesn't lead to dictatorship, the argument would be valid if we were living in the medieval times but the fact is in most of today's society, atleast in most of the European countries, restricting free speech has only made society better. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Sweden[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Switzerland[/url][/QUOTE] As stated before, I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with holding an unpopular opinion, it is wrong however to directly incite violence. Saying 'I dislike the black community' is not hate speech it is expression of opinion. Saying 'Lets torch some niggers' is a threat. Threats should be investigated and punishable. Also under Sweden's laws having a responsible debate in public is allowed. Going to a KKK rally in Sweden may be illegal. But peacefully debating with another entity is not. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583541]I'm not attacking minorities, I'm not looking to take away the rights from minorities - Just some very specific minorities and for very good reasons, not just because they "disagree" with me.[/QUOTE] Now you are being discriminatory towards a group. Also 'for good reason' is not an acceptable excuse.

[QUOTE=lanhacker1488;41583606]Yes! Sweden is at the forefront of social progression! Every country should strive to better themselves to the standards of Sweden. Sweden, YES! Swedes are not even an ethnic group in Sweden and therefore not protected by laws against hate speech. Who defines what is hate speech and what isn't? The controlling entity. But let's give up more rights because what could go wrong, the government knows what's best and wants it for us.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that Sweden could turn into a dictatorship full of censur at any minutes because hate speech is prohibited? The controlling entity is the people in the first place. They were the once who decided to prohibit hate speech.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583692]Are you saying that Sweden could turn into a dictatorship full of censur at any minutes because hate speech is prohibited? The controlling entity is the people in the first place. They were the once who decided to prohibit hate speech.[/QUOTE] Partially, depending on the definition of hate speech you could find yourself looking at [thumb]http://webbsnack.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/polis.jpg?w=780[/thumb] when you go to facepunch because someone says nigger in a way that swedish legislators don't like. Oh and this particular screenshot is from when police decided to restrict access to piratebay, motherless.com has also been blocked this way.

Why would they restrict a site for child porn if someone says nigger on it? That's a mistake on a totally different level.

[QUOTE=omggrass;41583470]at this point in time we are currently in the lower left hand corner of this chart: [img]http://thoughtsaloud.com/images/political_circle_small.jpg[/img] any real attempts to abridge freedom of speech for PC reasons or religious reasons moves us closer to tyranny.[/QUOTE] Lol at objectivists and libertarians in the freedom section. Yeah sure is free dying from no healthcare.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41583851]Why would they restrict a site for child porn if someone says nigger on it? That's a mistake on a totally different level.[/QUOTE] He stated that with restriction on freedom of speech you could see an image similar to that when you go to someplace like facepunch or 4chan where users can post whatever they like. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;41583873]Lol at objectivists and libertarians in the freedom section. Yeah sure is free dying from no healthcare.[/QUOTE] It's possible to be both a leftist and libertarian. Not all of us believe in privatized everything.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41583878] It's possible to be both a leftist and libertarian. Not all of us believe in privatized everything.[/QUOTE] But that makes you more of a social democrat rather than a libertarian or god forbid, an objectivist

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582891]Example: Racist group uses hate speech to recruit, said group goes out at night beating black people for being black. There's how vocal expression can harm.[/QUOTE] That's indirect. What directly causes harm there is the group going out at night beating black people for being black. Which is illegal anyway; don't need to prevent them from recruiting. A better example would be harassment - if you insult someone day in day out, they're eventually going to suffer from it. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582976]That's not at all what I'm talking about. Let me make it a bit more clear. Racist group A does not go out publicly and does not use hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group A does not gather as many recruits. Therefor group A doesn't do as much harm because it is smaller. Racist group B goes out publicly and uses hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group B gets more people than group A. Therefor group B is bigger and does more harm when the group acts. Did that make it clear? [editline]25th July 2013[/editline] Being offensive is not illegal and shouldn't be, not in our society, it's only hate speech which is in form of public statements.[/QUOTE] Free speech isn't free speech when it isn't neutral. I'm sure said racist groups would disagree with their assessment as "harmful". The point of free speech is to allow people to propagate unpopular opinions.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;41583938]But that makes you more of a social democrat rather than a libertarian or god forbid, an objectivist[/QUOTE] I think personal preservation of 'muh freedums' is more important than anything else so that would quite literally make me a libertarian it just so happens I have leftist tenancies.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;41583873]Lol at objectivists and libertarians in the freedom section. Yeah sure is free dying from no healthcare.[/QUOTE] also "politically correct activists" whatever that means on the pathway to tyranny. I'm also curious as to what a moderate Democrat looks like considering the party in general is middle-right. I don't think the person who made that chart is very good at politics.

Score!

Its funny how the sounds we emit from our throat can cause so much shit

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41584044]I think personal preservation of 'muh freedums' is more important than anything else so that would quite literally make me a libertarian it just so happens I have leftist tenancies.[/QUOTE] I agree with freedom until it starts actively making the world a worse place.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582708]just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing[/QUOTE] Censorship is literally worse than Hitler

The idea that freedom of speech is used by racist bigots to recruit more to their fold is completely preposterous, there are fundamental factors to why people join hate groups and its not because someone sits on the side walk screaming racist slurs and made up research. Besides, the best way to deal with these people is to return in kind with counter protests, counter information and encourage higher standards of education. The best way to stamp out racism is education, not to just make it illegal to discuss or say.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;41584188]Its funny how the sounds we emit from our throat can cause so much shit[/QUOTE] Every animal ever uses sounds from their throats to communicate. Usually it's used to make threats too. We are animals and threats remain threats. Some people just can't brush over harsh words, especially if it's a blatant threat.

[QUOTE=Vasili;41584924]The idea that freedom of speech is used by racist bigots to recruit more to their fold is completely preposterous, there are fundamental factors to why people join hate groups and its not because someone sits on the side walk screaming racist slurs and made up research. Besides, the best way to deal with these people is to return in kind with counter protests, counter information and encourage higher standards of education. The best way to stamp out racism is education, not to just make it illegal to discuss or say.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Very, very seldom does banning and censoring actually fix a problem.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41584570]Censorship is literally worse than Hitler[/QUOTE] Censorship has its justifications. In war time it makes sense to use censorship for certain things and the press/media in general censor themselves all the time to avoid shitstorms. It usually becomes a problem when it's the government that decides countrywide censorship because they are hardly if ever actually qualified to decide what exactly should or should not be made public.