American democracy and its double standards

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. None of the reasons you give for shutting it down are good, you are suggesting restricting people's rights for no good reason.

2. If you don't have a good argument, you certainly don't get to restrict free speech with that argument as justification, the burden of proof is on you to prove why the restrictions are necessary, not on the people who don't want their rights restricted, to prove that they aren't necessary.

1. Yes, the reason is good: the message sucks and it bothers people. 

"Free speech" isn't a magic word that makes everything good.  The reason we have free speech is to allow good ideas to spread.  If bad ideas can't be killed by free speech, then kill the bad speech.  Simple.  Stop repeating mantras beyond the point where they don't work.

2. Your assessment of my idea as 'not good' is a personal opinion.  If enough people say we can "get to" restrict free speech, and we can get through the legal challenge then it's on.  I don't have to convince you it's "good", just enough people.  The reason is "we want it".  

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No can do...it would be like shutting down hockey in Canada.

Street Hockey has been banned before.  It's not an absolute right, and like free speech can be limited.

The G7 protest in Toronto was allowed to go forward.... in a park miles from where the G7 leaders were meeting.  If Nazis want to protest, we can find them a hockey arena to protest... in summer... or maybe a jail

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, the reason is good: the message sucks and it bothers people. 

"Free speech" isn't a magic word that makes everything good.  The reason we have free speech is to allow good ideas to spread.  If bad ideas can't be killed by free speech, then kill the bad speech.  Simple.  Stop repeating mantras beyond the point where they don't work.

2. Your assessment of my idea as 'not good' is a personal opinion.  If enough people say we can "get to" restrict free speech, and we can get through the legal challenge then it's on.  I don't have to convince you it's "good", just enough people.  The reason is "we want it".  

 

 

No.....we have free speech to allow ALL ideas to spread, not just "good ideas".

Please keep your voluntary shackles where there is less liberty.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No.....we have free speech to allow ALL ideas to spread, not just "good ideas".

Riiight... because we want 'bad ideas' to propagate as far as possible  

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Please keep your voluntary shackles where there is less liberty.

Keep your silly American absolutes on your side of the cyber border or I'll clap you in maple chains !  

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Riiight... because we want 'bad ideas' to propagate as far as possible  

Keep your silly American absolutes on your side of the cyber border or I'll clap you in maple chains !  

 

No you won't...it was an American blogger on this side of the border who broke the Gomery hearings publication ban to inform all.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, the reason is good: the message sucks and it bothers people. 

Suppose I say this about your messages. Do I get to ban them then?

You see, any time you have laws which ban free speech, they have to be designed and interpreted by someone. And that someone NEVER feels their own speech is problematic. No, it is speech which contradicts their views which they want banned. Funny how that works out...

You seem to have confidence that such a law will never be twisted by those who disagree with your views into banning you from expressing them. I would suggest that confidence is misplaced.

Quote

"Free speech" isn't a magic word that makes everything good.  The reason we have free speech is to allow good ideas to spread.  If bad ideas can't be killed by free speech, then kill the bad speech.  Simple.  Stop repeating mantras beyond the point where they don't work.

And how do people decide which ideas are good and which are bad without ever hearing them? Oh, I'm guessing YOU, or someone of your ideological persuasion get to decide for us? I believe there lies your confidence in the worthiness of such a scheme, a belief that it will be those who think like you who get to make the decisions.

Quote

2. Your assessment of my idea as 'not good' is a personal opinion.  If enough people say we can "get to" restrict free speech, and we can get through the legal challenge then it's on.  I don't have to convince you it's "good", just enough people.  The reason is "we want it". 

I'm struggling to think of anywhere in the world such views have not led to disaster and failing. I'm struggling to even find any instance in time or space where such views, where prevailing, led to any improvement in society. Help me out here.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The G7 protest in Toronto was allowed to go forward.... in a park miles from where the G7 leaders were meeting.  If Nazis want to protest, we can find them a hockey arena to protest... in summer... or maybe a jail

But Communists are okay, right? You'd be horrified if anyone proposed jailing them...

[Shady]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Riiight... because we want 'bad ideas' to propagate as far as possible  

Keep your silly American absolutes on your side of the cyber border or I'll clap you in maple chains !  

Who decides what's a bad idea?  It's subjective.  That's why you always err on the side of free speech.  Saying anything of importance risks offending someone.  Is there going to be a ministry of truth to decide which messages suck and which ones don't?

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

1. Who decides what's a bad idea?  It's subjective. 

2. That's why you always err on the side of free speech. 

3. Saying anything of importance risks offending someone. 

4. Is there going to be a ministry of truth to decide which messages suck and which ones don't?

1. I think most people would think Naziism is a bad idea ?  50% + 1 at a minimum.

2. Yeah, maybe it's time to revisit that.

3. I'm not talking about important things.

4. It's really not that complicated.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

But Communists are okay, right? You'd be horrified if anyone proposed jailing them...

Communists are the flip side of Libertarians.  Those are economic ideas and not ideas about eradicating and committing violence on people because of their religion or race.

So, they are 'ok'.  CHECK.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Suppose I say this about your messages. Do I get to ban them then?

2. You see, any time you have laws which ban free speech, they have to be designed and interpreted by someone. And that someone NEVER feels their own speech is problematic. No, it is speech which contradicts their views which they want banned. Funny how that works out...

3. You seem to have confidence that such a law will never be twisted by those who disagree with your views into banning you from expressing them. I would suggest that confidence is misplaced.

4. And how do people decide which ideas are good and which are bad without ever hearing them?

5. Oh, I'm guessing YOU, or someone of your ideological persuasion get to decide for us? I believe there lies your confidence in the worthiness of such a scheme, a belief that it will be those who think like you who get to make the decisions.

6. I'm struggling to think of anywhere in the world such views have not led to disaster and failing. I'm struggling to even find any instance in time or space where such views, where prevailing, led to any improvement in society. Help me out here.

1. No.

2. But my speech is NOT problematic.  It's incredibly great.  And we have unanimous opinion on that over and over again so it's practically out of the realm of objectivity at this point.

3. I'm not talking about a law necessarily.  Just shut them down.

4. It's not that complicated.

5. No - you have to agree it's a bad idea.  Which presumably you do.  You think Naziism, gassing people based on their orientation, religion and race is a bad idea.  I'm almost certain you do.

6. Actually we do it here all the time, but we deny that we do it.  We censor, prevent, and shut down things but for some reason Nazi marches are the hallmark of freedom.  Yelling "fire" or walking around nude, or shitting in the town square seems to be ok to ban but somehow this action is ok.

 

Listen, I'll let you in on a secret - I'm being a little flippant and provocative but maybe you can see my point here ?  It's a little ridiculous for us to deny that we restrict freedom of speech and use this odious ideology as the lithmus test of our freedom.  

 

 

 

 

[Argus]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Communists are the flip side of Libertarians.  Those are economic ideas and not ideas about eradicating and committing violence on people because of their religion or race.

So, they are 'ok'.  CHECK.

And the fact that communism, wherever and whenever it has actually been attempted, has resulted in mass slaughter is not to be taken into consideration? I mean, they're not calling directly for mass slaughter, just for ideas which would inevitably result in mass slaughter.

[Argus]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.

2. But my speech is NOT problematic.  It's incredibly great.  And we have unanimous opinion on that over and over again so it's practically out of the realm of objectivity at this point.

3. I'm not talking about a law necessarily.  Just shut them down.

Shut who down?

Quote

4. It's not that complicated.

Simple idea often turn out to be complicated in execution.

Quote

5. No - you have to agree it's a bad idea.  Which presumably you do.  You think Naziism, gassing people based on their orientation, religion and race is a bad idea.  I'm almost certain you do.

But no one is going to ask me. There'll some sort of bureaucracy staffed by no-doubt well-meaning people earnestly assessing things people say to determine if they're against the public good. And those people will all, for the most people, be of a certain mindset. And as bureaucracies do, they will not, absolutely guaranteed, confine themselves to just banning Nazis. The chink in the armor of free speech will allow for all sorts of other 'problematic' speech to be inserted. For all I know, the hate speech laws in the UK started out banning Nazis. Now the police are at your door if you say a man isn't a woman on Facebook. I guarantee you that if I were posting from the UK and this were a UK board the police would have spoken to me long since, probably repeatedly, if not charged me. Truth, btw, is not an acceptable excuse for what you say if it causes racial or religious offense.

Quote

6. Actually we do it here all the time, but we deny that we do it.  We censor, prevent, and shut down things but for some reason Nazi marches are the hallmark of freedom.  Yelling "fire" or walking around nude, or shitting in the town square seems to be ok to ban but somehow this action is ok.

We individually, yes, but WE the government does not really shut down speech except for what might be termed serious hate speech propaganda efforts.

Quote

Listen, I'll let you in on a secret - I'm being a little flippant and provocative but maybe you can see my point here ?  It's a little ridiculous for us to deny that we restrict freedom of speech and use this odious ideology as the lithmus test of our freedom. 

Why do you think that when the Nazis wanted to march through Skoki Illinois the Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended their right? Because they had a soft spot for Nazis?

Edited March 21, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

1. And the fact that communism, wherever and whenever it has actually been attempted, has resulted in mass slaughter is not to be taken into consideration?

2. I mean, they're not calling directly for mass slaughter, just for ideas which would inevitably result in mass slaughter.

1. Firstly that's not completely true, and secondly I have prescribed an extreme approach based on the direct expression of ideas that are harmful, this is kind of a two-step.

2. You have to make a call at some point, so...

10 hours ago, Argus said:

3. Shut who down?

3. The example was something like Nazis marching through a neighbourhood of elderly Jewish folks at night.  There are so many things wrong with that, so ... no just say no.

10 hours ago, Argus said:

4. Simple idea often turn out to be complicated in execution.

4. That's the great thing about being on a forum.  All talk no action.

10 hours ago, Argus said:

5.But no one is going to ask me. There'll some sort of bureaucracy staffed by no-doubt well-meaning people earnestly assessing things people say to determine if they're against the public good. And those people will all, for the most people, be of a certain mindset. And as bureaucracies do, they will not, absolutely guaranteed, confine themselves to just banning Nazis. The chink in the armor of free speech will allow for all sorts of other 'problematic' speech to be inserted. For all I know, the hate speech laws in the UK started out banning Nazis. Now the police are at your door if you say a man isn't a woman on Facebook. I guarantee you that if I were posting from the UK and this were a UK board the police would have spoken to me long since, probably repeatedly, if not charged me. Truth, btw, is not an acceptable excuse for what you say if it causes racial or religious offense.

5. I would set it up to ask you.  

10 hours ago, Argus said:

6. We individually, yes, but WE the government does not really shut down speech except for what might be termed serious hate speech propaganda efforts.

7. Why do you think that when the Nazis wanted to march through Skoki Illinois the Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended their right? Because they had a soft spot for Nazis

 6. We do shut down speech in cases where it's dangerous and not serious hate speech and we shut down free expression or behaviour that we simply do not LIKE.  We used to prevent Paul Magder from opening his store on Sundays because Saturday was the day of doing business - didn't matter if it was his Sabbath.  I'm being provocative here and trying to spark discussion but my point is that we prevent and control a lot of behaviours that are effectively free expression and don't have a problem with it because it is not the pure expression of Nazi hate that people love to defend...

7. I would have agreed with them back then, but not today.  We had a "public" that was informed via controlled channels.  Now we have an anonymous mob controlled by liars funded by foreign governments.  Do you agree that things have changed in that way, even if you don't agree with my solution ?

[Shady]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think most people would think Naziism is a bad idea ?  50% + 1 at a minimum.

2. Yeah, maybe it's time to revisit that.

3. I'm not talking about important things.

4. It's really not that complicated.

So you're saying that 50% +1 should be able to ban speech they find bad ideas?  There's a lot of ideas over the last several decades that were disapproved of by 50% +1 of the population at one point or another.  Voting rights for example.  Honestly, it seems like you're a closet totalitarian.  Tyranny of the majority.

1.  Most people do.  But the problem with banning ideas is that it's a slippery slope.  What about ideas that are kinda like Naziism but not quite the same?  I'm not sure what you mean by Naziism anyways.  Calling for violence is already prohibited speech.

2.  Revisit it how?  By erring on the side of silencing people?  Are you a person that puts more weight on security than freedom?

3.  Who decides what's important?  A ministry of truth?  You?  What's important is completely subjective.  Surely you know that.

4.  Yes, unfortunately it is, and it's childish to think that it isn't.

 

 

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I would set it up to ask you.  

Is this a serious discussion or not? I did present serious reasons to oppose your idea.

Quote

7. I would have agreed with them back then, but not today.  We had a "public" that was informed via controlled channels.  Now we have an anonymous mob controlled by liars funded by foreign governments.  Do you agree that things have changed in that way, even if you don't agree with my solution ?

Yes, things have changed, as they inevitably do. But let's nor forget that the number of people involved in organized hate groups like Nazis or neo-Nazis or Klukkers or other white supremacist groups has gone DOWN over the years, not up. The idea that the danger from these groups has risen is not substantiated by evidence. People are just more offended by them now.

These days are LONG gone now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnI8SUQPB4k

Edited March 22, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

So you're saying that 50% +1 should be able to ban speech they find bad ideas?  There's a lot of ideas over the last several decades that were disapproved of by 50% +1 of the population at one point or another.  Voting rights for example.  Honestly, it seems like you're a closet totalitarian.  Tyranny of the majority.

No I am not saying that.

3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

1.  Most people do.  But the problem with banning ideas is that it's a slippery slope.  What about ideas that are kinda like Naziism but not quite the same?  I'm not sure what you mean by Naziism anyways.  Calling for violence is already prohibited speech.

Ok we can start with Naziism.

3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

2.  Revisit it how?  By erring on the side of silencing people?  Are you a person that puts more weight on security than freedom?

I value clarity and consistency.

3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

3.  Who decides what's important?  A ministry of truth?  You?  What's important is completely subjective.  Surely you know that.

It's not that difficult.

 

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not that difficult.

 

Yes it is. That's why all the countries that try to determine what is and isn't free speech based on "hate speech" do such a poor job of it. If it was as easy as you claim, then we'd see an example of that in real life, yet we don't, it's a pipe dream.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Is this a serious discussion or not? I did present serious reasons to oppose your idea.

You don't like the idea of censorship, but I was referring to you not liking Naziism.

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Yes, things have changed, as they inevitably do. But let's nor forget that the number of people involved in organized hate groups like Nazis or neo-Nazis or Klukkers or other white supremacist groups has gone DOWN over the years, not up.

2. The idea that the danger from these groups has risen is not substantiated by evidence. People are just more offended by them now.

3. These days are LONG gone now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnI8SUQPB4k

1. from 1945 to 2017 maybe but ... since ?

2. I don't remember far-right attacks when I was young.  I don't remember people mailing pipe bombs to Democrat politicians, trying to torch hotels of refugees, or having regular public rallies.

3. Yes, "freedom of speech" fixed this problem in the past.  But "free speech" did not include access to mass communication tools.  Time to shut them down.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Yes it is. That's why all the countries that try to determine what is and isn't free speech based on "hate speech" do such a poor job of it.

2. If it was as easy as you claim, then we'd see an example of that in real life, yet we don't, it's a pipe dream.

1. They have done a great job in the past, but new technology is the problem not new speech.

2. Example of what ?  Hate Speech ?  You don't think it exists in real life ?  What ?

[bush_cheney2004]

New technology isn't so new when it comes to adjudicating constitutionally protected speech in the United States, from the earliest print media through radio, television, and modern digital telecommunications.   American courts have routinely navigated the path for protected private and commercial speech/expression, even in cases regarding obscenity vs. local community standards.   Modern cases with standing have routinely overturned previous rulings in favour of more speech/expression protections.

In the U.S., prior restraint of "hate speech" by government has not met the necessary public interest threshold to outweigh constitutional rights.   Hate crimes, however, do meet such a legal standard.    Ideas vs. Actions.

Edited March 23, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't like the idea of censorship, but I was referring to you not liking Naziism.

1. from 1945 to 2017 maybe but ... since ?

I believe the upsurge in leftist rhetoric and intolerance is fanning a rise in rightist rhetoric and intolerance.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I don't remember far-right attacks when I was young.  I don't remember people mailing pipe bombs to Democrat politicians, trying to torch hotels of refugees, or having regular public rallies.

Do you remember Muslim attacks  in Canada when you were young? Do you remember masked gangs of leftists shouting down any conservative speaker, if not actually physically attacking them? Do you remember severe identity politics? I don't.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Yes, "freedom of speech" fixed this problem in the past.  But "free speech" did not include access to mass communication tools.  Time to shut them down.

As I've pointed out, the kind of laws you're looking for have been in place in the UK and France for a couple of dozen years now and things are considerably WORSE there, than they are here or in the U.S..

I would point out that I've never seen a problem with even the most far left speakers at college campuses, but whenever someone like Benjamin Shapiro or Anne Coulter go somewhere to talk I read about how the security operation to protect them and the hall they're speaking in from violent leftists cost half a million dollars or more. So who is the violent side then?

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

I believe the upsurge in leftist rhetoric and intolerance is fanning a rise in rightist rhetoric and intolerance.

Do you remember Muslim attacks  in Canada when you were young? Do you remember masked gangs of leftists shouting down any conservative speaker, if not actually physically attacking them? Do you remember severe identity politics? I don't.

All of the above amounts to you saying I am right and adding some bit.

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

As I've pointed out, the kind of laws you're looking for have been in place in the UK and France for a couple of dozen years now and things are considerably WORSE there, than they are here or in the U.S..

Worse how?  Relative to what?  How else are we different?

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

 

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All of the above amounts to you saying I am right and adding some bit.

Uhm, no. It amounts to pointing out that it is the upsurge in fanaticism and hatred by the Left which is inspiring the same among the right. So perhaps the solution to the problem is to silence the fanatics of the Left instead.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Worse how?  Relative to what?  How else are we different?

There is far less of a sense of being one community, there is far less assimilation, there is a lot more suspicion and distrust between communities who largely live in different areas, self segregating. There is more violence between those communities. There are actual hate groups with tens of thousands of active members, and even far right political parties. One of those might wind up taking over France one of these days.

That is what your laws have given rise to.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Uhm, no. It amounts to pointing out that it is the upsurge in fanaticism and hatred by the Left which is inspiring the same among the right. So perhaps the solution to the problem is to silence the fanatics of the Left instead.

2. There is far less of a sense of being one community, there is far less assimilation, there is a lot more suspicion and distrust between communities who largely live in different areas, self segregating.

3. There is more violence between those communities. There are actual hate groups with tens of thousands of active members, and even far right political parties. One of those might wind up taking over France one of these days.  That is what your laws have given rise to.

1. Uh huh but we WERE arguing that it wasn't happening.  At least you're saying it's happening now even if you are backwardly blaming it on Antifa - who showed up after the initial thread.

2. How would you know ?  You haven't lived there, I have.

3. You are drawing a causal line based on nothing.  You could also say the cheese and wine are at fault.