Free Speech vs Hate Speech

[Rue]

KImmy the very act of calling something stupid is a subjective opinion. You've unintentionally admitted my point, Justin/Justine you said is stupid. You didn't say hateful.

Now where do you want to head on censoring what you think is stupid on this forum? You may as well close down the forum using such a loose and ambiguous proposition. Who defines what is stupid? If you can't handle Harptiler or Cretin or Justine and find that stupid good for you but censor it?

Censoring stupid as you call it I argue is politically correct nanny state knee jerk reaction where one presumes they can impose through censorship what is politically allowed to be stated.

So now explain again, who dies and appointed anyone the keeper of what is stupid and abusive and what criteria do they use?

Your argument/explanation (which I disagree with totally but respect) is used by people to shut down satire, humour and free speech. What's the test for stupid and abusive?.

Being the grand poobah of political correctness is easy when one thinks their sheeyit does not smell and anyone else's sheeyit stinks.

I argue censorship is only needed if comments incite crime or violence.

Don't for a second tell me that being "stupid" for calling Justin Justine or Chretien Chretin constitutes a need to ban or censor. It does not. If you think people are that stupid and in need being protected my loud message to you is stop shoving your breast in my face I do not breast feed and do not presume I need your breast even if I did.

If one can't handle Justine and not just Justin why do they not turn it off as do not read? They have a finger.

Where do they get off telling me I can't handle someone calling Chretien Chretin?

Long standing policy or short standing, my debate is to challenge it if its stupid. See how that works? Someone thinks what I say is stupid, I think its stupid I get censored because they are allowed to impose their belief of stupidity on the entire forum.

This is supposed to be a forum for free speech.

Do the moderators or you have such little faith in the participants that they really think they need to ban the word Chretin or Justine?

Come on.

When to censor and regulate hate, stupidity whatever politically correct stereotype you care to attach to it, is the question.

I would argue with sexuality and gender, the state has gone overboard in imagining slights and insensitivity and trying to censor it or regulate it to the point of absurdity and this forum and its moderators at time reflect that nanny state stupidity.

It argue it is absurd to argue using the word Justine is so dangerous or abusive or stupid that it needs censoring. Give me a break. What next?

Is that argument any different then someone who goes in a museum and claims a painting is unacceptable and should be taken down? If they can't handle a penis or a vagina in a painting then walk out. Am I allowed to use the word penis on this forum by the way?

I talk as a minority now. The nanny state has never protected me from anti Semitism. I had to learn how to deal with it as an individual and I never expected the nanny state to step in thank you. If someone were to physically attack me yes I would call for the police and I can understand criminal law is now involved and not taking the law into my own hands, but give me a bloody break, do you think every time I was called dirty Jew a teacher stepped in and censored it? Do you not think I had to fight my own battles at times? Politicallyu correct my ass, I had to fight at times.

I have seen far more abusive, insulting, stupid and hateful things on this form than Chretin or Justine. Where have you been? You can come on this forum and accuse a politician of being stupid, a war criminal;, a murderer, but now you want to have this bull sheeit arbitrary designation? What is the difference between calling Harper a fascist or saying Harpitler? You want to explain that?

Why is one more acceptable than the other because it is-I can call Harper a Nazi no problem. Call him Harphitler and suddenly its unacceptable? Come on..

Now I say all that with respect for moderation because sure its needed but do we go too far when it comes to defining what is hateful or stupid?

Justin/Justine? Chretien/Chretin? Give me a break.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

It's not a ban on Hate Speech, it's a ban on Stupid Speech.

-k

I'd also suggest a ban on stupid listening and deliberate disingenuous miscomprehension. That causes at least as many if not more problems around here.

[Big Guy]

This is a long-standing policy on the forum, and it was enacted to try to keep the level of discourse from going down the toilet. We used to have members who insisted on using terms like "CONservative and LIEberal" and referring to politicians by insulting nicknames like "Jean Cretin" or "Harpitler" and any number of others. Referring to the prime minister by a feminine version of his name adds no value to the discussion and only serves to inflame others to provoke similarly insulting responses, and lower the level of discourse.

It's not a ban on Hate Speech, it's a ban on Stupid Speech.

-k

I believe it is an attempt to keep some angry posters from goading each other. There are a number of participants on this board where the intent is to insult or goad or anger a perceived "enemy" and the issue becomes just another convenient weapon with which to hurt.

Moderation serves only to limit the number of weapons available. If one poster hates another poster then all of that speech becomes hate speech. I assume that it is somehow therapeudic to continue not unlike standing outside and shouting at the wind.

I congratulate you on your perseverance in trying to explain things to the stubborn:

“In the confrontation between the stream and the rock, the stream always wins- not through strength but by perseverance.” ~ H. Jackson Brown

[Rue]

As you can see Kimmy the responses solicited engage in the very thing they accuse me of. That is te point. Censorship becomes a weapon used by some to censor others for the very thing they accuse the others of doing. If you can't see the irony in that then let me make it as clear as can be-those who

come on this forum to support censorship do it precisely because they don't believe in free speech and opinion, they believe in only their speech and opinion.

[Rue]

Eyeball your response I would argue clearly illustrates you did not understand the issues being articulated and want to control the board to make it suitable to your own personal beliefs.

As for Big Guy's response, he turned it personal against me, using indirect insults to suggest I am angry, stubborn. The question is, if he said it directly to me and did not couch his words, should he be reprimanded for that? Does engaging in passive aggressive indirect insult make it less abusive? Of course not. Does he or it need to be censored? Of course not. Is it acceptable to be passive aggressive to then get passed the rules to avoid a reprimand? Well?

Tell me, anyone, when is insulting someone allowed and not allowed? Clearly Eye or Bug Guy haven't a clue how to answer that and they did not.

Should I run to the moderator to get at Big Guy?

Lol.

Big Guy unintentionally has done an excellent job explaining the absurdity of censorship.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

Eyeball your response I would argue clearly illustrates you did not understand the issues being articulated and want to control the board to make it suitable to your own personal beliefs.

That's right, I want to stage a coup, overthrow the moderators and let the people choose their moderators in free elections.

That should clearly illustrate I understand perfectly the issue I'm mocking but you know what they say...zoom right over your head.

[Big Guy]

"If you think someone's posts is about you,truth is it probably isn't ,but you probably see yourself in it.

Suggestion : Don't get upset with the mirror...Fix the reflection !"

- Big Guy

[Rue]

Big Guy no one is upset. This is a debating forum. The very issue is how to define freedom of speech and concepts like hatred, stupidity, etc. Its a rhetorical debate that has no one answer but we must challenge censorship because its easier to take a right away then honour it. That is the point. This has nothing to do with me or you, it has to do with the issue of how to define limits and if so who does it and when.

Your response to me again misses the point. No one is upset. That is what you see. Now if you want to claim you were not responding to me, give it a rest. You were and you proved it by responding again and its interesting because you are someone who told me you put me on non response but you respond.

No this is not an issue about me. Its an issue as to freedom of speech and who defines what is hateful. Its an issue that some believe should not be the domain of government, some do, and some are iffy about how much the government should intervene.

[Rue]

No Eye but you did want to come on a debate discussion I was making a strong effort to respond to and be snotty with me which is your choice. This issue is not about me. Its about who decides limitations on free speech and when.

[eyeball]

What on Earth are you babbling about?

[jacee]

No Eye but you did want to come on a debate discussion I was making a strong effort to respond to and be snotty with me which is your choice. This issue is not about me. Its about who decides limitations on free speech and when.

Everybody decides for themselves what they want to listen to/read.

You can speak/write, but I can put you on ignore, then sometimes check you out if I want to, see nothing of interest, and go back to ignore.

I like cybercoma's post

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24778-free-speech-vs-hate-speech/?p=1091538

Within the limits of the law, hate speech etc., you can speak freely ... but no one is obligated to listen. And they are also free to disagree and sometimes disagree and sometimes shout you down.

Freedom of speech does not imply anyone has to listen.

.

[Black Dog]

What on Earth are you babbling about?

Don't do it. That way lies madness.

[kimmy]

Big Guy no one is upset. This is a debating forum. The very issue is how to define freedom of speech and concepts like hatred, stupidity, etc. Its a rhetorical debate that has no one answer but we must challenge censorship because its easier to take a right away then honour it. That is the point. This has nothing to do with me or you, it has to do with the issue of how to define limits and if so who does it and when.

Petty drivel like calling Mr Trudeau "Justine" has no place in a debate. It wouldn't be allowed in a real debate and we're not missing out on anything by not allowing it here. Childish antics like that would get you a penalty in a real debate.

As for who defines limits and how they're defined... I think the answers to those questions are rather obvious.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Petty drivel like calling Mr Trudeau "Justine" has no place in a debate.

Gee, so much concern was not expressed when several members called Mr. Bush "Shrub" (and worse) for years in this forum.

[kimmy]

Gee, so much concern was not expressed when several members called Mr. Bush "Shrub" (and worse) for years in this forum.

I believe rules were toughened after the Shrub Administration, and in response to Canadian, rather than American, issues.

I believe that the administrators enacted this rule because they got tired of former member Dobbins hitting the "report" button every time I referred to Stephane Dion as "Moon Unit".

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Ok... since this is now really about MLW policies I moved to Support & Questions forum.

I'm not sure if Kimmy is right about the trigger to this, but it was a moderator policy that came in awhile ago to not refer to politicans and parties with derisive names. 'Shrub' would not be allowed under that policy, so (outside this thread) feel free to report schoolyard taunts such as that.

[Argus]

Ok... since this is now really about MLW policies I moved to Support & Questions forum.

I'm not sure if Kimmy is right about the trigger to this, but it was a moderator policy that came in awhile ago to not refer to politicans and parties with derisive names. 'Shrub' would not be allowed under that policy, so (outside this thread) feel free to report schoolyard taunts such as that.

I think we would be better off focusing on the regular, daily taunts, mockery, jeers and disrespect aimed at members here as opposed to minor and borderline insults aimed at politicians and world leaders. As for example, your complaint in my referring to Trudeau as a 'rich boy'. I'm not even sure how that is an insult, to be honest.