• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Those Backwards Northern States

Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
You are so very correct! We are allowed, any way you look at it, to insult one another. What we are NOT permitted to do is to incite violence against one another, and I think that's reasonable.

Now, what I just said does allow government to curb some speech, but that is only speech that incites. I'm happy to be able to say I think Trump is a terrible President, and I've never *****ed when people complained about how awful Hillary was (though I never really understood it, either).

That last point brings up another issue, however. Remember Trump, during the last election, leading chants of "lock her up." Isn't that incitement? Wouldn't she have to be convicted of something, first? And isn't that a terrible example of the hypocrisy I so dislike?
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the old joke.....
American: We have freedom of speech. I have the right to walk right up to the President, & say,
"Mr Reagan, you stink!".
Russian: I too have freedom of speech. I can walk right up to President Gorbachev, & say,
"Mr Reagan stinks!".
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
You are so very correct! We are allowed, any way you look at it, to insult one another. What we are NOT permitted to do is to incite violence against one another, and I think that's reasonable.

Now, what I just said does allow government to curb some speech, but that is only speech that incites. I'm happy to be able to say I think Trump is a terrible President, and I've never *****ed when people complained about how awful Hillary was (though I never really understood it, either).

That last point brings up another issue, however. Remember Trump, during the last election, leading chants of "lock her up." Isn't that incitement? Wouldn't she have to be convicted of something, first? And isn't that a terrible example of the hypocrisy I so dislike?
Click to expand...
Incitement of whom, the police, who only have the power to lock anybody up?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Remember Trump, during the last election, leading chants of "lock her up." Isn't that incitement?
Click to expand...
Neither Trump nor anyone in the audience would have the
power or ability to actually "lock her up", so it's not incitement.
Now, if they'd chanted "shoot her", that would be incitement.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
epronovost said:
Actually no, several muslim clerics have been banned from public speaking in Canada because they were preaching hatred toward homosexuals, women and Jews. Several non-cleric muslims have been accused of similar infractions too following campaign of harrasment on the web amongst other things. The vast majority of muslims and muslim clerics in Canada aren't hateful bigots though. The most famous is a cleric of Quebec City and is known to be an advocate of tolerance and "liberal islam" so to speak. His speach after his Mosque was attacked by an alt-right scum made him quite famous. It was a very good speach. I can try to find a translation for you if you want.
Click to expand...
Really? If an Imam says allah hates all non muslims, and will destroy them, do they get locked up? If so, then you deny freedom of religion, unless it is government approved, right?
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
shmogie said:
Really? If an Imam says allah hates all non muslims, and will destroy them, do they get locked up?
Click to expand...

If he says such kind of things on a regular basis, the police will certainly gain an interest in such an Imam, but as long as he calls for Allah to punish people (especially if it's post morterm puunishment) he will probably not be bothered too much. If he calls his congregation to do it though, he will be arrested for sure.

If so, then you deny freedom of religion, unless it is government approved, right?
Click to expand...

Like anywhere else on the planet; no country tolerates human sacrifice for religious purpose even if the person is willing to be sacrificed and in many jurisdiction some form of exorcism. The same can be said for polygamy, domestic violence, child marriages, etc. Freedom of religion is never absolute.
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
What does "impose their behavior" mean?
Click to expand...

Create a climate of fear, rejection and allienation for another class of people. Hate speech operates very much like any other bullying and harrasment strategy. The goal is to make it so uncomfortable for minorities that they will "voluntarily" withdraw themselves from the public space and the political and cultural arena.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
epronovost said:
If he says such kind of things on a regular basis, the police will certainly gain an interest in such an Imam, but as long as he calls for Allah to punish people (especially if it's post morterm puunishment) he will probably not be bothered too much. If he calls his congregation to do it though, he will be arrested for sure.



Like anywhere else on the planet; no country tolerates human sacrifice for religious purpose even if the person is willing to be sacrificed and in many jurisdiction some form of exorcism. The same can be said for polygamy, domestic violence, child marriages, etc. Freedom of religion is never absolute.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but we are speaking of speech. We have laws against incitement to violence, and implied harmful speech ( screaming fire in a theater).

I am talking about so called hate speech.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
And well you should. If he wins another term, your nation will be fundamentally and irreversibly changed.

As your neighbour, I find that an uncomfortable proposition.
Click to expand...
"Irreversible" is limited to thermodynamic processes, not government.
We survived Nixon & others. We'll survive Trump.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
epronovost said:
Create a climate of fear, rejection and allienation for another class of people. Hate speech operates very much like any other bullying and harrasment strategy. The goal is to make it so uncomfortable for minorities that they will "voluntarily" withdraw themselves from the public space and the political and cultural arena.
Click to expand...
OK.
It seems that our disagreement is about which effect is
worse.....the hate speech, or government controlling it.
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
OK.
It seems that our disagreement is about which effect is
worse.....the hate speech, or government controlling it.
Click to expand...

Would agree with this assesment. It's all a question of what we are willing to risk. Since my government is a liberal democracy with strong institution and a sane political culture, I have a good a mount of trust in it and thus as a regulator. If I lived in the US, I might actually agree more with you.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
epronovost said:
Would agree with this assesment. It's all a question of what we are willing to risk. Since my government is a liberal democracy with strong institution and a sane political culture, I have a good a mount of trust in it and thus as a regulator. If I lived in the US, I might actually agree more with you.
Click to expand...
We have strong institutions too.
We & they will survive Trump.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
epronovost said:
Isn't it fairly normal and in fact healthy for free speech and political participation in a liberal democracy to prohibit bullying, harrasment and incitation to racial hatred?
Click to expand...
No, because at that point it ceases to be a open, free liberal democracy that violates one of the most valued, treasured, important, and critical rights of a liberal democracy, the right of free speech. Often enough, just letting people air their grievances prevents problems, and certainly is better than forcing them to bottle their grievances up until they explode.
And from a perspective of the ideological battle, prohibiting words only sends people underground, making it harder to counter and combat their narratives as they keep them secret, providing little to no chances and opportunities for anyone to provide rebuttal.
For a liberal democracy to be healthy, it must be free and open. Censorship is for the weak and insecure, and those who--often unbeknownst to themselves--want to see their cause crash and burn once the repression blows up in their face.
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
No, because at that point it ceases to be a open, free liberal democracy that violates one of the most valued, treasured, important, and critical rights of a liberal democracy, the right of free speech.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The most important component of a liberal democracy is the fact that political, cultural and social participation is equally open to all classes of people. The moment a group is pushed out of this sphere, it becomes a restrictive democracy with bunch of self appointed unregulated "gatekeepers" and the idea of "free speech" is an illusion.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
epronovost said:
I disagree. The most important component of a liberal democracy is the fact that political, cultural and social participation is equally open to all classes of people. The moment a group is pushed out of this sphere, it becomes a restrictive democracy with bunch of self appointed unregulated "gatekeepers" and the idea of "free speech" is an illusion.
Click to expand...
Prohibiting free speech--including hate, prejudice, and bigotry--does push people out and does create these "gatekeepers." Now, bullying is one thing, which should be discouraged, but a Klan rally, which is not only Constitutionally protected, allows them a more safe and structured environment to speak their mind, peacefully blow off some steam, and return to life. Should they not be allowed to speak is when their grievances begin to have some truth and merit to them, especially when they rightfully claim their rights are being denied. And it's not a good position to be in when you have banned nothing more than words.
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Prohibiting free speech--including hate, prejudice, and bigotry--does push people out and does create these "gatekeepers." Now, bullying is one thing, which should be discouraged, but a Klan rally, which is not only Constitutionally protected, allows them a more safe and structured environment to speak their mind, peacefully blow off some steam, and return to life. Should they not be allowed to speak is when their grievances begin to have some truth and merit to them, especially when they rightfully claim their rights are being denied. And it's not a good position to be in when you have banned nothing more than words.
Click to expand...

When the Klan can walk your street, the idea that black people have and should have the same rights and liberties as white people becomes debatable. It becomes a fight and fights are largely won by three things: money, number and power. Minorities, especially historically oppressed minorities, have little of those three things. Another thing to keep in mind is that no fight is without it's pains. Though black people might win the fight against anti-black racists, at what cost will it be for them? How much of their political, cultural and social freedom will they have lost to the attacks of those racist folk and organisations which the rest of society protected even though they disaproved of them. It's very easy to welcome a fight when you aren't on the first line and unlikely to suffer from it.

What is banned isn't "mear words" they are ideas. Ideas that not all races and ethnicity are or should be equal; the idea that one faith should dominate over others; the idea that a gender is superior; the idea that some sexual attraction and identities are sicknesses. These ideas make a mockery of "free speech" by their very nature. These ideas are poison and completely incompatible with liberal democracy. What hate speech law tries to prevent is allowing racist people (for example) the breath and liberty to not only express their beliefs by harrassing people, but also the opportunity to organise. The KKK is a very dangerous organisation with an anti-democratic agenda. The racist people who compose it are individually not a threat at all to society, but together with the room aforded to them, they can organise, find themselves a leadership, pull resources in common, concentrate their energy unto specific issues to advance a wider cause, that of racism and racialism.

PS: the idea of physical catharsis for anger like sreaming insult, destorying stuff, menacing, etc. can help reduce and control anger is bull****. It actually increases it. If you let racist people scream racial epiteth and march in the steet under some banner and rallying symbole, you only make them eager for the time they can do it again and harder because they get an immense "kick" out of hurting those they hate. The human brain loves a fight and the sensation that what it hates and fear is suffering. They basically nurture their violence and hatred in addition to making their target fear for their safety and their rights. If I was black and living in a city where the Klan hold rallies, I would make myself as small as possible; how "free" am I in such circumstances?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top