EU, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Microsoft to ban free speech

[TimG]

They will, however, throw you in jail if you're inciting violence and riots because whether you like it or not there are reasonable limits on freedoms and no reasonable person is going to say that you should be allowed to incite violence or threaten the safety of people by calling on others to attack them.

And whether you like or not the definition of a 'reasonable person' is purely subjective and because of that protection of free speech is entirely dependent on the people who get to decide what a 'reasonable person' is. As long as those gatekeepers conform to your personal ideology you are happy. If those gatekeepers suddenly started to apply standards that did not suit your personal ideology I would bet you would be less sanguine about such subjective definitions.

Of course, you are so blind to your own biases you simply define 'reasonable person' to mean 'anyone who thinks like me'. This gives you a wonderful excuse to ignore things you don't agree with instead of thinking more deeply about the implications of the system as it stands today.

Edited June 22, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

I know, for example, Saudi Arabia has freedom of speech, you just aren't free from consequences. So if you are born a Muslim and you declare that Islam is false and you have changed your religion, you can totally do that, but there are consequences (such as death).

Freedom of speech is more than what rules the government imposes. It is a culture. A culture that allowed for the free exchange of ideas and for ideas to compete in a free marketplace, is one that is successful in the long run since the best ideas rise up above the rest.

"Your freedoms extend only to the point where they interfere with the freedoms of others."

Still makes sense to me.

And since some people are too stupid, too mean, or too disturbed to comprehend that racial stereotyping and abuse 'interfere with the freedoms of others', rules and consequences are necessary.

hate crime?

.

Edited June 22, 2016 by jacee

[Guest]

"Your freedoms extend only to the point where they interfere with the freedoms of others."

Still makes sense to me.

And since some people are too stupid, too mean, or too disturbed to comprehend that racial stereotyping and abuse 'interfere with the freedoms of others', rules and consequences are necessary.

hate crime?

.

Surely, both your links are concerned with assaults and have nothing to do with freedom of speech?

[jacee]

Surely, both your links are concerned with assaults and have nothing to do with freedom of speech?

They have to do with hate speech.

.

[Guest]

They have to do with hate speech.

.

No, they have to do with hitting and spitting, don't they? Last I read, anyway.

[-1=e^ipi]

"Your freedoms extend only to the point where they interfere with the freedoms of others."

You mean like the freedom to not be offended, that the safe space crowd wants so much?

[cybercoma]

And whether you like or not the definition of a 'reasonable person' is purely subjective and because of that protection of free speech is entirely dependent on the people who get to decide what a 'reasonable person' is. As long as those gatekeepers conform to your personal ideology you are happy. If those gatekeepers suddenly started to apply standards that did not suit your personal ideology I would bet you would be less sanguine about such subjective definitions.

Of course, you are so blind to your own biases you simply define 'reasonable person' to mean 'anyone who thinks like me'. This gives you a wonderful excuse to ignore things you don't agree with instead of thinking more deeply about the implications of the system as it stands today.

Anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable. You're the guy who disregards experts when their findings undermine your ideology. Who are you trying to kid here?

[TimG]

You're the guy who disregards experts when their findings undermine your ideology.

Hardly. All I do is point out that the various "facts" that your and your ilk trot out to defend your positions are really nothing but opinions. Unlike you, I do not claim that my opinions are fact.

[dre]

Limits based on physical harm are reasonable.

I disagree. I don't think that governments should even have the ability to take stuff off the web.

[Guest]

I disagree. I don't think that governments should even have the ability to take stuff off the web.

I'm talking about incitement to violence. I'm not sure what you mean?

[dre]

I'm talking about incitement to violence. I'm not sure what you mean?

I would rather have the government not regulate the web at all.

[Guest]

I would rather have the government not regulate the web at all.

Ok sorry, I got a little drifted. I forgot what the title of the thread was.

[Bonam]

I would rather have the government not regulate the web at all.

Would be nice. But the nature of any entity that holds power is to try to grow its power. The moment the government has any ability to regulate the internet (which it already does), it will only continue to expand that ability ever more. The only question is how much and how quickly.

[jacee]

You mean like the freedom to not be offended, that the safe space crowd wants so much?

I think freedom from racial hate speech is a reasonable aspiration for advanced societies.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think freedom from racial hate speech is a reasonable aspiration for advanced societies.

People do have that freedom. It's called not listening to someone else.

[Guest]

I think freedom from racial hate speech is a reasonable aspiration for advanced societies.

.

That freedom places restrictions on others. That's not a reasonable aspiration for advanced societies.

[jacee]

That freedom places restrictions on others. That's not a reasonable aspiration for advanced societies.

Racial hatred places restrictions on people.

The freedom to attack with racial hatred is not an advanced aspiration.

I think a punch in the mouth should be the allowed response, in defence of and to stop harmful attacks on self or others. ?

Verbal abuse is abuse, it is harmful and the damage should be stopped as quickly as possible, using 'reasonable defensive force'.

.

Edited June 23, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

People do have that freedom. It's called not listening to someone else.

Punching them in the mouth is a more effective deterrent and should be allowed.

.

[TimG]

Racial hatred places restrictions on people.

Except that goes both ways. People perpetually whining about 'white privilege' and other such nonsense are spreading racial hatred. But I suspect that you only want to outlaw speech which you personally find offensive which is a self-serving argument that has no merit. Edited June 23, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

Except that goes both ways. People perpetually whining about 'white privilege' and other such nonsense are spreading racial hatred.

I don't bother with that because there's nothing to be gained by talking that intelligently to racists.

But I suspect that you only want to outlaw speech which you personally find offensive which is a self-serving argument that has no merit.

I'm ok with racial hate speech ... as long as you're ok with me punching them in the mouth as an acceptable response.

Racists are usually people with mental limitations, incapable of comprehending intelligent thought. A punch in the mouth is more effective than state intervention.

?

Edited June 23, 2016 by jacee

[-1=e^ipi]

Punching them in the mouth is a more effective deterrent and should be allowed.

So you take the pope's position? That one should respond to words with violence.

How moral of you.

[-1=e^ipi]

A punch in the mouth is more effective than state intervention.

Violence is not okay. Please do not advocate violence.

[Argus]

Racial hatred places restrictions on people.

The freedom to attack with racial hatred is not an advanced aspiration.

I think a punch in the mouth should be the allowed response, in defence of and to stop harmful attacks on self or others.

Verbal abuse is abuse, it is harmful and the damage should be stopped as quickly as possible, using 'reasonable defensive force'.

.

So you believe people who say things which offend you should be violently assaulted. That's an interesting concept but not out of line with much of your extremist anti-democratic rhetoric.

Tell me, how do you feel about people committing violence against you because they are outraged by what you say? Is that acceptable?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Argus

[jacee]

So you believe people who say things which offend you should be violently assaulted. That's an interesting concept but not out of line with much of your extremist anti-democratic rhetoric.

Tell me, how do you feel about people committing violence against you because they are outraged by what you say? Is that acceptable?

I don't attack individuals verbally because of their race.

And I'm unlikely to be attacked because of my race either.

I'm just making the point that ignorant racists who do attack innocent people for no good reason are generally pretty blockhead stupid, and may benefit from more immediate and concrete consequences than the law provides.

A fist in the mouth stops the ugly noises.

Just my opinion. Others may differ.

.

Edited June 23, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Violence is not okay. Please do not advocate violence.

Please do not spew racial hatred.

Racial hate speech is not OK.

.