FHRITP: That's apparently a thing.

Michael Hardner · May 18, 2015

And isn't it ironic that the same people calling for criminal punishments for people being jerks are often the same people complaining about 'tough on crime' policies... Murder someone like Khadr and be treated like a hero. Say something rude to a reporter and you should be locked away...

This is about how people determine who is with them, and who is against them. A sexist pig yelling at somebody is irredeemable you see, while a poor boy who robs a bank is a victim of circumstance.

In other words, you nailed it.

GostHacked · May 19, 2015

This is about how people determine who is with them, and who is against them. A sexist pig yelling at somebody is irredeemable you see, while a poor boy who robs a bank is a victim of circumstance.

In other words, you nailed it.

Well if you like generalizations. Not all fall in the classification that TimG stated.

Wilber · May 19, 2015

Okay, I'm having trouble with your answer to my question. It was this:

How would you deal with a suggestion that freedom of speech be curbed regarding something you don't find offensive?

For instance, would you ban outright the drawing of Mohammad? Would you ban Pride Parades? Certain people of certain religions find such things offensive.

I don't see that you answered that.

As for your question, I'm pretty sure I did answer it. Please indulge me and point it out again.

With regards to the phrase in the OP. I fully agree with you that if it could be shown to be an incitement to commit that act on an unwilling individual, it would be a crime. The same way any incitement to violence would.

I've already told you what I think should be curbed, I would leave the how to the lawyers which I am not.

I'm still waiting to here what you should be curbed so I will answer it for you. Yelling sexual expletives at women in public describing an act that they would have every right to think is an attack. OK, Allowed. Dangling a dick in front of them while saying nothing. Not OK. Not allowed.

II love the straw men you throw in to avoid the subject of this topic.but I will respond anyway. Bearing in mind that I am not a Muslim or a woman and neither are you, I personally would not see a simple picture of Mohammed as insulting but a picture of Mohammed screwing a goat might be another matter entirely. What do we do about it? I don't know but a picture can't be yelled in public and then run away from. Most, if not all the pictures found offensive to Muslims were displayed on the internet or in papers an magazines, not in public places.

Regarding the phrase in the OP, what does it mean to you personally. Do you not think it incites the commitment of that act on an unwilling individual or do you think it is acceptable because it incites the commitment of that act on all women? Except maybe these cretins mothers and sisters.

May 19, 2015

I've already told you what I think should be curbed, I would leave the how to the lawyers which I am not.

I'm still waiting to here what you should be curbed so I will answer it for you. Yelling sexual expletives at women in public describing an act that they would have every right to think is an attack. OK, Allowed. Dangling a dick in front of them while saying nothing. Not OK. Not allowed.

II love the straw men you throw in to avoid the subject of this topic.but I will respond anyway. Bearing in mind that I am not a Muslim or a woman and neither are you, I personally would not see a simple picture of Mohammed as insulting but a picture of Mohammed screwing a goat might be another matter entirely. What do we do about it? I don't know but a picture can't be yelled in public and then run away from. Most, if not all the pictures found offensive to Muslims were displayed on the internet or in papers an magazines, not in public places.

Regarding the phrase in the OP, what does it mean to you personally. Do you not think it incites the commitment of that act on an unwilling individual or do you think it is acceptable because it incites the commitment of that act on all women? Except maybe these cretins mothers and sisters.

I love how you make stuff up that isn't there. Straw man? Really?

You are not still waiting to hear anything from me. I believe in freedom of speech no matter how offensive that doesn't cross the line into some other infraction which I have described. I said so more than once.

As for the phrase in the OP. If it "incites the commitment of that act on an unwilling individual" then it becomes a crime. It has to be proven, of course. If it just offends then no matter how much it offends there should be no law against it.

I could not really be plainer.

As for me not being a woman or a Muslim. Irrelevant really. So is the goat.

Wilber · May 19, 2015

I love how you make stuff up that isn't there. Straw man? Really?

You are not still waiting to hear anything from me. I believe in freedom of speech no matter how offensive that doesn't cross the line into some other infraction which I have described. I said so more than once.

As for the phrase in the OP. If it "incites the commitment of that act on an unwilling individual" then it becomes a crime. It has to be proven, of course. If it just offends then no matter how much it offends there should be no law against it.

I could not really be plainer.

As for me not being a woman or a Muslim. Irrelevant really. So is the goat.

All I have heard is generalizations from you, nothing on specific acts

I love how only men's opinions count when it comes to what threatens women. A few have tried to post here but they soon get shouted down. 22 pages and I count less than thirty posts by women on this issue even though this phrase is aimed directly at them. kimmy, who in my opinion is one of the smartest people here, gave up on this thread a long time ago.

Ever wonder why so few women post here and why most who do don't hang around for the long term? I don't.

May 19, 2015

All I have heard is generalizations from you, nothing on specific acts

I love how only men's opinions count when it comes to what threatens women. A few have tried to post here but they soon get shouted down. 22 pages and I count less than thirty posts by women on this issue even though this phrase is aimed directly at them. kimmy, who in my opinion is one of the smartest people here, gave up on this thread a long time ago.

Ever wonder why so few women post here and why most who do don't hang around for the long term? I don't.

Okay. I'll try harder. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. It can't not. There would be no freedom without it.

This thread was started about a specific act, which if it offends, there should be no law against. If it breaks other laws, (Threatening, sure. You just have to prove it. You wouldn't want someone convicted of a crime they didn't commit, right? - Stunting, if you really want, try that as well) Fill your boots.

That's specific.

(I have no opinion on whether anyone was threatened in this case. I haven't watched any of the videos nor do I intend to. )

That said, generally, there should be no law against giving offense. I don't care if it's the phrase in the OP, drawing a prophet, denying the holocaust, using racist/sexist/agist/fattist/heightist/homophobic/heterophobic/islamophobic/infidelophobic/anti semitic or any other kind of phobic, ist or itic language, the law should not get involved unless a crime is committed. I know about hate speech laws. I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

Whether the opinion is that of a man or a woman is not relevant. It doesn't matter. Your comments about how only men's opinions etc. etc. are also irrelevant, and if I may say so, deliberately misleading.

Now, we've been going back and forth for a while without saying anything new, so I'm going to assume a basic difference. You believe some offensive speech should be proscribed, I do not. Given that, we could argue until the cows come home without ever covering any new ground. So go ahead, have the last word between us on it.

Edited May 19, 2015 by bcsapper

jacee · May 19, 2015

Freedom to offend doesn't include sexual harassment in a workplace.

That's why arrogant little pig got fired: She was in her workplace ... working in front of a camera.

Little pig demonstrated to his employer and to all the other viewers that he would sexually harass women in their workplace.

Who wants to employ a little pig like that?

Too bad about his nice job. :lol:

.

Edited May 19, 2015 by jacee

May 19, 2015

Well Exactly. Although I still think that's a little unfair on pigs.

jacee · May 19, 2015

Well Exactly. Although I still think that's a little unfair on pigs.

Ya pigs get a bad rap being compared to little pukes like him, eh. :lol:

.

Hal 9000 · May 19, 2015

So, just a couple questions; Can the male reporters charge these guys with sexual harassment too? And...Can the women who shout FHRITP, be charged with sexual harassment?

Smallc · May 19, 2015

So, just a couple questions; Can the male reporters charge these guys with sexual harassment too? And...Can the women who shout FHRITP, be charged with sexual harassment?

That's why I'm thinking that in most cases, simple harassment is the most that could be considered..if that.

cybercoma · May 19, 2015

Okay. I'll try harder. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. It can't not. There would be no freedom without it.

i'll stop you right there. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech both have limits. Every time you say that people can offend, you're simply whitewashing the problem by calling it merely "offensive." Freedom of speech/expression does not include the freedom to harass. In fact, freedom of speech/expression doesn't even allow you to swear in public spaces or even yell which can be deemed as "causing a disturbance." Instead of redefining this as "freedom to offend," you should be looking at it as the law would and that's harassment. Do you think it's legal to walk up to a woman on the street and say lewd and sexually aggressive things to her? How about in the days of landline telephones–was it ok to call someone up and harass them with sexual vulgarity? There are limits to freedoms and you should recognize that without appealing to some notion that freedoms are absolute.

Smallc · May 19, 2015

i'll stop you right there. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech both have limits. Every time you say that people can offend, you're simply whitewashing the problem by calling it merely "offensive." Freedom of speech/expression does not include the freedom to harass. In fact, freedom of speech/expression doesn't even allow you to swear in public spaces or even yell which can be deemed as "causing a disturbance." Instead of redefining this as "freedom to offend," you should be looking at it as the law would and that's harassment.

I thought you said we weren't talking about the law. Now we're back to intent.

Hal 9000 · May 19, 2015

i'll stop you right there. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech both have limits. Every time you say that people can offend, you're simply whitewashing the problem by calling it merely "offensive." Freedom of speech/expression does not include the freedom to harass. In fact, freedom of speech/expression doesn't even allow you to swear in public spaces or even yell which can be deemed as "causing a disturbance." Instead of redefining this as "freedom to offend," you should be looking at it as the law would and that's harassment. Do you think it's legal to walk up to a woman on the street and say lewd and sexually aggressive things to her? How about in the days of landline telephones–was it ok to call someone up and harass them with sexual vulgarity? There are limits to freedoms and you should recognize that without appealing to some notion that freedoms are absolute.

Ahhh yes, that takes me down memory lane.

May 19, 2015

i'll stop you right there. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech both have limits. Every time you say that people can offend, you're simply whitewashing the problem by calling it merely "offensive." Freedom of speech/expression does not include the freedom to harass. In fact, freedom of speech/expression doesn't even allow you to swear in public spaces or even yell which can be deemed as "causing a disturbance." Instead of redefining this as "freedom to offend," you should be looking at it as the law would and that's harassment. Do you think it's legal to walk up to a woman on the street and say lewd and sexually aggressive things to her? How about in the days of landline telephones–was it ok to call someone up and harass them with sexual vulgarity? There are limits to freedoms and you should recognize that without appealing to some notion that freedoms are absolute.

Basically that's what I said. There should be freedom to offend. Not to harass, incite, disturb, etc. And that freedom is freedom from legal sanction. Not consequences. As there have been in this case.

bush_cheney2004 · May 19, 2015

So, just a couple questions; Can the male reporters charge these guys with sexual harassment too? And...Can the women who shout FHRITP, be charged with sexual harassment?

Good question...does that include heckling an NHL goalie with "Katy Perry" ?

cybercoma · May 19, 2015

I thought you said we weren't talking about the law. Now we're back to intent.

I already addressed your point about intent. Intent does not matter. There are many examples in the CCC where intent does not apply. Going to court and saying, "I was just kidding," is not a valid defence. Edited May 19, 2015 by cybercoma

Smallc · May 19, 2015

I already addressed your point about intent. Intent does not matter. There are many examples in the CCC where intent does not apply. Going to court and saying, "I was just kidding," is not a valid defence.

Intent is always important in any trial. Without intent you're talking about a much lower level of criminality, if at all. I was just kidding is often very valid if it can be proven that you were.

msj · May 19, 2015

Intent is always important in any trial. Without intent you're talking about a much lower level of criminality, if at all. I was just kidding is often very valid if it can be proven that you were.

The extent to which the "just kidding" defence works is that it is likely that the accused would never set foot in a courthouse as the case is unlikely to go to trial in the first place.

One hopes that fewer cases waste the resources of the justice system.

Smallc · May 19, 2015

The extent to which the "just kidding" defence works is that it is likely that the accused would never set foot in a courthouse as the case is unlikely to go to trial in the first place.

One hopes that fewer cases waste the resources of the justice system.

That's just it - without intent there often isn't a trial. You need motive, evidence of harm, etc. for most types of charges.

GostHacked · May 19, 2015

Ever wonder why so few women post here and why most who do don't hang around for the long term? I don't.

It's because some members post like they are children. Women have enough problems with their own kids let alone the ones they see online trying to be adults in a political forum.

GostHacked · May 19, 2015

Freedom to offend doesn't include sexual harassment in a workplace.

That's why arrogant little pig got fired: She was in her workplace ... working in front of a camera.

Little pig demonstrated to his employer and to all the other viewers that he would sexually harass women in their workplace.

Who wants to employ a little pig like that?

Too bad about his nice job.

.

Wow that's stretching it to the extreme. Nice to see men referred to as 'little pigs', and some men might actually find that offensive.

Minor technicality : For sexual harassment to take pace in the work place, BOTH would have to be working the same job when the incident happened. Otherwise you can just view it as sexual harassment.

But can I go down the street and call someone a n F'n Ahole?

cybercoma · May 19, 2015

Intent is always important in any trial. Without intent you're talking about a much lower level of criminality, if at all. I was just kidding is often very valid if it can be proven that you were.

Proving innocence, eh? That's how backwards you have this. There's tons of laws where intent doesn't matter at all. Manslaughter is murder without intent. Criminal negligence is in numerous sections and involves no ill intent. Discrimination doesn't need to have intent. Causing a public disturbance doesn't need to have intent.

What you're arguing for here is an "I'm just kidding" defence. It doesn't exist, nor should it in any reasonable and just system.

cybercoma · May 19, 2015

But hey, if you want to justify the FHRITP crowd, that's your prerogative. You take on the consequences of being dismissive of scumbags actions and not standing up for the people they harass. If that's the kind of character you want to portray, that's on you.

Smallc · May 19, 2015

Manslaughter is a different change than murder for a reason. You're sort of disproving your own example. Guilt has to be proven. for many charges intent is paramount.