You're right about the scenario (however unlikely it is).... but that doesn't address my point about bigoted speech. I don't think limiting bigotry in the public forum is paramount to creating a one-party system.
Getting a bit tense on the Democrat side now.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
There are differing views of bigotry speech. Where's the line and who draws it? Is speech viewed as bigoted by one group worse than speech advocating the killing of a group of people? Especially if said speech results in murders. I see many problems in drawing lines here.
I would say it's verbally assaulting a particular race, sexual orientation, or religious group in a public forum in a means that isn't deomonstratively provable and has malicious intent. Pretty much similar to the current requirements to prove libel defamation because, basically that's all it is,however; if this type of speech goes to far people don't just lose economic or social opportunity... They might lose their physical wellbeing because some portion of the public is convinced of their inherent (but false) guiltiness.
So talking negatively about a group's sexual orientation is worse than advocating in public the killing of a particular group? This logic makes zero sense to me.
Not exactly a slippery slope argument, so much as an understanding of human nature and an opinion based on observation of other countries with hate speech laws. A bit odd you're saying you have a problem with the slippery slope argument now though, since your original argument was a variation of it.
Last edited:
Right now the bho administration is continplating prosecuting people.who voice opposition to the hypnosis of global warming. The LA time will not publish any letters to editor that hat deny gw.
Didn't Galileo face the same narrow minds too.
Didn't Galileo face the same narrow minds too.
Maybe it would have been better if hrc had won the Democrat nomination in 2008
She would be on her way out the door, and bho would just be the latest Gary Hart
She would be on her way out the door, and bho would just be the latest Gary Hart
I don't quite get the rationale the group would have in saying that. Fighting evil with evil maybe? But that's a little too revolutionary for my taste. I would say that sort of speech is more protect able than what I'm talking about though (even though I don't like it) that type of speech is what started many revolutions including ours, Frances', Russia's, etc...
It reminds me of a song by a British rock band about George Bush not too long ago...
War is overdue
The time has come for you
To shoot your leaders down
Join forces underground
Lose control
Increasing pace
Warped and bewitched
Time to erase
Whatever they say
These people are torn
Wild and bereft
Assassin is born
Aim, shoot, kill your leaders
Oppose and disagree
Destroy demonocracy
Lose control
Increasing pace
Warped and bewitched
Time to erase
Whatever they say
These people are torn
Wild and bereft
Assassin is born
I could certainly see where multiple nations' governments wouldn't take too kindly to that. Luckily it didn't gain huge popularity even though the band is pretty big. That's the thing with revolutionary speech... if I went on TV and said all that, I would probably be thrown in jail whether or not it was constitutionaly 'legal'. I might be acquitted someday... or I might just disappear. My point being, speech has greater threats than moderately expanding the limited cases when speech is restricted (defamation, ludeness, imminent danger, etc...) Namely, the complete disregard for the constitution in situations where the nation's security is threatened from without or from within.
You haven't said anything about speech advocating the killing of people. Not sure why you've decided to instead focus on speech against gays, religion, etc... I don't view the two as even being in the same ballpark as far as hate and danger to those who the speech is directed against as the former explicitly ask for action (murder) against a particular group (ie....the police).
I addressed this in my, admittedly, long reply above. The danger with limiting that type of speech is the squelching of a future revolution should it ever be necessary. As someone said earlier, I don't support the viewpoints that are presented but I feel that the speech you're talking about has an (EXTREMELY) limited positive outcome should it come to throwing off an oppressive government. However, we all know our government won't support a coup against itself... so having a law allowing or outlawing that kind of speech wouldn't really mean anything. The government is going to oppose it, but at that point the government wouldn't be acting out of the will of the people anyways... so who cares?
I guess if you're talking about preventing a pseudo "cleansing" along the lines of the holocaust I might be for it.
I'm talking about a political group advocating the killing of a group of people which you seem to have no problem with but want speech talking bad about groups of people restricted. So a group can advocate the killing of gays, muslims, police, etc...and such speech should be allowed but any other negative speech toward such a group should be restricted? Again...the logic here is puzzling.
A thing I didn't note: a positive aspect of allowing people to say offensive things is that dialogue remains relatively open and people(yes even the klan) tend to moderate to an extent. When you ban an idea it has a way of not getting rid of it but merely forcing it under ground and radicalizing it. The white working class feeling as if it has no voice is part of the Trump issue. What do you think would happen if you suppressed the borderline racist and sometimes fully racist views a lot of them have? No reasonable person can argue that Europe's hate speech laws have resulted in a less hateful right wing. These feelings shouldn't be indulged as Trump has, but they also shouldn't be suppressed.
Last edited:
Let me give you an example. I am against cheap shot labels on people. One our longtime posters wants to hang the term "creationist" on conservatives. I am conservative Republican, but I but I am the biggest supporters of evolution on here. In fact, I dare to say that evolution isn't over. We are simply the apex for now.
Therefore, his calling conservatives creationists is both not valid for all but in some cases insulting. It implies those who don't agree with him are dull witted. I always correct him, which he ignores, but I don't think his saying it should be banned.
People change what they don't what to be called. Liberals are now Progressives. Don't get mad if I call you tomorrow what you wanted to be called today.
Therefore, his calling conservatives creationists is both not valid for all but in some cases insulting. It implies those who don't agree with him are dull witted. I always correct him, which he ignores, but I don't think his saying it should be banned.
People change what they don't what to be called. Liberals are now Progressives. Don't get mad if I call you tomorrow what you wanted to be called today.
I suppose the difference is the fact that they don't generally have Trump-like candidates pandering to social tensions running for major public office (Excluding the UK who has). I do see your viewpoint about keeping a dialogue open though. I don't see Germany suffering toooooo much because of the major denazification operations of the allies after WWII. Sure, they still have an ultra-nationalist underground, but those people aren't moving into the mainstream as is happening in the U.S. (Trump's followers are certainly pretty far to the right, not that he truly is)
A fair argument.
It's tough to regulate implication. Even in defamation law... we're getting closer and closer to Libel Law here. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on it. I am, however; sure that Donald Trump wouldn't hesitate to take someone to court for defamation of character and yet he stands on a stage and defames the character of entire races and creeds of people. (Or he purposefully garners the support of those that do)
Far right parties are winning record numbers of seats across Europe. The refugee crisis has helped them, but they were on the rise prior to that. Neo-nazis are big in Germany these days. To your denazification point, yes authoritarian crackdown can work, but you really have to commit to that and enforce it at gun point. Islamic countries have done it with many ideas, some more successfully than others.
Last edited:
Interesting.. You only bleeped one slur...do we have a double standard on slurs???
Actually, I didn't. The forum won't let me say it. Obviously I wasn't saying it out of malice, I was saying it to make a rhetorical point about racial slurs.
From the BBC just 19 hours ago:
Lutz Bachmann, 43, is accused of inciting racial hatred in Facebook posts, in which he called refugees "cattle", "scumbags" and "filth".
Pegida's rallies have attracted thousands of supporters in Germany.
Separately, police arrested five suspects near Dresden accused of attacking migrant hostels and plotting far-right, anti-immigrant terror.
Tuesday's police raid in Freital, involving a GSG9 anti-terror unit, was not linked to the trial.
Investigators suspect four men and a woman, aged from 18 to 40, of far-right violence against migrants. Three other men were arrested last November.
The group is suspected of targeting refugee accommodation in Freital and a left-wing housing project in Dresden with explosive devices in attacks last autumn. Investigators found a cache of banned firecrackers considered so dangerous that the group is suspected of attempted murder.
The group is also linked to attacks on a left-wing councillor's car as well as a party office in Dresden.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said authorities had dealt a "powerful blow to a regional right-wing terrorist group".
Criminal past
Lutz Bachmann's trial was being held amid tight security in Dresden. The Pegida founder claims it is politically motivated and wore large, rectangular dark glasses in an apparent swipe at German censorship rules.
Outside court, supporters held banners reading "Shame on you! Acquit Bachmann" while opponents shouted "Bachmann behind bars".
The movement has spread to numerous countries since its launch in the eastern German city in 2014.
There were 1,005 attacks on refugee homes in Germany last year - five times more than in 2014.
Mr Bachmann has several previous convictions and has served time in jail before. In 1998 he was sentenced to three years and eight months for several burglaries, but he then fled to South Africa.
After extradition, for an invalid visa, he served 14 months in jail in Dresden. In 2010 he was given a two-year suspended sentence for possession of cocaine.
Pegida was prominent in demonstrations in Cologne in January after numerous complaints of sexual assaults against women in the city on New Year's Eve.
The attacks were largely blamed on people from North Africa who entered Germany illegally or have sought asylum. No trials involving suspects from the Cologne assaults have taken place.
Pegida's anti-immigration demonstrations have often been met by counter protests.
The court says Mr Bachmann "disrupted public order" through his comments, which constituted an "attack on the dignity" of refugees.
If found guilty, he could face between three months and five years in prison.
What is Pegida?
- Acronym for Patriotische Europaeer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West)
- Umbrella group for German right-wingers, attracting support from mainstream conservatives to neo-Nazi factions and football hooligans
- Holds street protests against what it sees as a dangerous rise in the influence of Islam over European countries
- Claims not to be racist or xenophobic
- 19-point manifesto says the movement opposes extremism and calls for protection of Germany's Judeo-Christian culture
Europe is a mess.....especially Germany. Muslims haven't successfully integrated into the western culture and now Europe is beginning to see the toll of their past immigration policies and it will only get worse. We see the results of those past policies and yet there are those in this country who seek to pattern our policies after those of Europe.
Last edited:
Didn't mean to imply malice on your part. If it seemed so, I apologize. I don't think there are any truly malicious people in this forum. Misguided and ideologically challenged, yes. Malicious, no.
My point was more to the fact that certain slurs are deemed more offensive than others...
