The Tyrannical idea of "hate speech"

[Nous]

Please lay off of this kind of nonsense, we're having an interesting debate and from my perspective it's appropriate that both of us might need to refine our arguments a bit. That said...

If a country were to implement a law against hate speech that used the definition of hate speech that YOU provided, then that law would - among other things - be a blasphemy law.

False. Get a dictionary. As the definition of "hate speech" I quoted from the Wikipedia clearly states, "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion . . ." Attacking a person on the basis of his/her religion is not blasphemy.

Blasphemy:

1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. Judaism.

1. an act of cursing or reviling God.
2. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, nowforbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation suchas Adonai.

3. Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities ofGod.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.:
He uttered blasphemies against life itself.​

the definition of blasphemy

Because your definition includes the idea of "attacking a religion".

No, it doesn't. Read it again.

Let's not conflate criticizing a religion with committing a hate crime.

You are the only one who has done that.

In several of the articles I linked to one point that was made clear several times is that hate speech is protected.

So?

And once again, it is a category mistake to lump religion in with classifications such as disability or ethnicity. One can change the former, one cannot change the latter.

Again, one of the most common forms of hate speech is speech that attacks a person on the basis of his/her religion. That's hate speech on the basis of religion.

Let me ask you point blank, since you've brought this up several times - are you of the opinion that criticizing a religion is hate speech?

No.

Let me amend and make more precise my concern. The behavior I'm seeing is that many people think that "hate speech" (whatever THAT is), either IS illegal or should be illegal. These people use the phrase as a means to attempt to stifle speech they don't like. So the common pattern is:

1 - I don't like what that dude is saying!
2 - I'll label his speech "hate speech" as a way to keep him quiet or get him de-platformed.

Then cite those examples.

First, it doesn't need any.

Hate speech has no value. That's why you can't tell us what value hate speech has. Hate speech contributes nothing to the marketplace of ideas. It's just a way to attack someone.

Second, one value would be to make sure that as a society we still have the backbone to defend our most important liberty.

It's perverted to suggest that hate speech is "our most important liberty." Totally perverted.

 

[columbus]

You have regular newspapers from the 90s that referred to gay people as "perverts" and "abominations"? Cite them.

Where you during the "Yes on Prop 8" thing? It was in every newspaper I knew about.
Tom

 

[columbus]

You have regular newspapers from the 90s that referred to gay people as "perverts" and "abominations"? Cite them.

Where you during the "Yes on Prop 8" thing? It was in every newspaper I knew about.
Tom

 

[Nous]

Then you have all you need. Bryant and Falwell were certainly quoted into the nineties. And there's one newspaper I refer to in particular -- The Toronto Sun -- that I have been corresponding with for over 30 years. They've published dozens of my letters, and also a column on the Op Ed page. You can investigate if you'd like. My name is Allen Earle.

You said you still have copies of these articles where gay people were labeled "perverts" and "abominations". Quote a couple of them. Give us the dates. They're probably online.

As I said, I don't recall reading any such "labels" used in newspaper articles even in the 70s, even in quoting the famous homophobes of that time.

 

[Nous]

Where you during the "Yes on Prop 8" thing? It was in every newspaper I knew about.
Tom

Quote a few examples.

 

[columbus]

I quoted from the Wikipedia clearly states, "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion . . ."

Didn't the whole "sue people who won't make us a cake" thing revolve around religion? It's legal to discriminate against people, as long as it's their religious beliefs and not their sexual orientation?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Quote a few examples.

I don't care about your opinion enough to spend that much time doing research for you.
Tom

 

[Nous]

Didn't the whole "sue people who won't make us a cake" thing revolve around religion? It's legal to discriminate against people, as long as it's their religious beliefs and not their sexual orientation?
Tom

I think you and Ice Horse are in the same basket.

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop "revolves around" his illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He has wrongly and uselessly tried to use his religion as a defense. Not even the DOJ in trying to argue on his behalf seems to belief he has a Free Exercise defense.

If that doesn't clarify the issues for you, I suggest you go to the original documents to inform yourself.

 

[Nous]

I don't care about your opinion enough to spend that much time doing research for you.
Tom

I knew you couldn't cite any examples. That's why I asked you.

 

[columbus]

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop "revolves around" his illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The case revolves around the government making discrimination legal.
It's legal, and profitable, to discriminate against people who aren't as politically correct as you think that they should be.

I don't like people who won't make theologically incorrect baked goods. I think it's stupid. But I don't think a six figure lawsuit is any less stupid and discriminatory.

Some pregnant woman in a restaurant managed to bully a waitress by attacking the restaurant on social media. So effectively that the restaurant apologized for having a dress code. I don't believe that politically incorrect bakers can survive social media.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

@Nous i'm happy to debate. i have no need to be on the receiving end of your spurious insults - later dude.

 

[Nous]

The case revolves around the government making discrimination legal.

What nonsense. Let me know if you get in the same neighborhood as the real world any time soon.

 

[Nous]

@Nous i'm happy to debate.

Have you debated some proposition? I would certainly like to know what it is. There are more than 110 posts on this thread, and you haven't figured what hate speech is yet. You didn't to do more on the topic than looking at videos of teenagers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You said you still have copies of these articles where gay people were labeled "perverts" and "abominations". Quote a couple of them. Give us the dates. They're probably online.

As I said, I don't recall reading any such "labels" used in newspaper articles even in the 70s, even in quoting the famous homophobes of that time.

I'm afraid I'm not willing to pay to get into the Toronto Sun's archives, since it began on November 1, 1971 (after the Toronto Telegram, at which I worked once, shut down). If you are not willing to trust my memory, as someone who has indeed had many letters published in that paper, then I suppose you'll just have to call me a liar.

PS: since the internet really wasn't around until Tim Berners-Lee wrote the original www specifications in 1989, you'll be hard pressed to find any of those letters with a Google search.

 

[Nous]

I'm afraid I'm not willing to pay to get into the Toronto Sun's archives, since it began on November 1, 1971 (after the Toronto Telegram, at which I worked once, shut down). If you are not willing to trust my memory, as someone who has indeed had many letters published in that paper, then I suppose you'll just have to call me a liar.

You said you have the articles. Do you have the date, the title, or the author of the article? Can you provide the quote?

 

[Nous]

BTW, @Evangelicalhumanist, is this the newspaper you are referring to:

The Toronto Evening Telegram was a conservative, broadsheet afternoon newspaper published in Toronto from 1876 to 1971.​

Toronto Telegram - Wikipedia

?

If so, it wasn't an ordinary newspaper, and that statements apparently were in the 1990s.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

BTW, @Evangelicalhumanist, is this the newspaper you are referring to:

The Toronto Evening Telegram was a conservative, broadsheet afternoon newspaper published in Toronto from 1876 to 1971.​

Toronto Telegram - Wikipedia

?

If so, it wasn't an ordinary newspaper, and statements apparently were in the 1990s.

You failed to read what I wrote. I wrote that the articles were in the Toronto Sun, which emerged out of the ashes of the Toronto Telegram in 1971. I was quite clear on that point. I worked at the Tely (in lowly positions), and knew some of those that brought a new paper to life in just about zero time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You said you have the articles. Do you have the date, the title, or the author of the article? Can you provide the quote?

Would you be so kind as to just call me a liar and get on with your life -- or do you have an agenda that you simply can't survive without bringing others to heal who haven't managed to save all their newspaper clippings, yellowed and crunchy, for 4 or 5 decades just waiting for this moment. And in fact, I have boxes of stuff that, having a lover in hospital for the past nearly 4 months needing constant attention because he's paralyzed, I'm not going to search through.

Now, if you have a searing need to bring me down, then just call me a liar, get over it, and get on with your life. I haven't either the time or inclination to defend myself against you, and so must admit that I am completely wrong and the entire world has been pro-gay since 1963, and all the **** are just delusional.

There, do you feel better? Stronger? More powerful? More righteous?

 

[Nous]

You failed to read what I wrote. I wrote that the articles were in the Toronto Sun, which emerged out of the ashes of the Toronto Telegram in 1971. I was quite clear on that point.

So you cut out these articles and put them in your scrapbook (why?), but you can't give us the date or any other information about them?

 

[Nous]

Would you be so kind as to just call me a liar

Would that correct? I was giving you the opportunity to show that you were not lying in your dubious claims.