On Recent Events at the University of Missouri

[Crown]

So you don't know what post hoc ergo prompter hoc means. What a shocker. Its latin by the way.

Do you know what a strawman is? 'Course you do! You keep building them and knocking them down quite well.

No you're are arguing that it will allow someone else to get away with a different form of censorship. You still haven't shown how this leads to that, especially when hate speech laws prevent certain criticisms in one area, and has nothing to say about criticisms in an unrelated area. Oh that's right, slippery slope for the win.

What mental deficiency do you poses that you feel the need to constantly restate my very clear position in a completely ass backwards way? Last time; no fundamental right to free speech means that we have no protection against government censorship, free speech does not in anyway imply freedom of consequences of said free speech.

Law : Guarantee free speech except for x,y and z

Government : Now we can censor a,b and c

mr friendly guy : Er how do you justify that? Only x,y and z is affected under the law, not a,b and c.

Government : Because we have the votes and are making a 'captains pick'

mr friendly guy : Yeah, but not because of the law affecting x,y and z. In other words, they would try it anyway, because you know, no government without hate speech laws will ever try to censor things. I mean, is the government using said law, or a different law to affect a,b,c.

Crown : Well there is a link, because the only way to guarantee free speech on a,b and c, is to also guarantee free speech to everything including x,y and z.

mr friendly guy : Why?

Crown : Because it wasn't a fundamental right to begin with, if there was a fundamental right to free speech then the government cannot go on a censorship spree.

Fixed that for you.

If you are going to criticise me for praising Australia's hate speech laws, it behooves you to, I don't know, know a little bit about said hate speech laws. Yeah I know, mighty inconvenient isn't it?

Where did I criticise Australia's hate speech laws? In fact the only explicit criticism I threw at Australian laws were Abbott's Asylum Seeker Abuse hush laws.

Now I am far from an expert, and I certainly don't know everything about said laws, but Andrew Bolt's case was a recent high profile example of the law in action and was debated a lot.

WHY would I need to know anything about Andrew Bolt's case? You brought it up, out of the blue without context and are getting smarmy because I don't give a shit. It does not matter to me if hate speech laws have been used to censure some right wing conservative hack. It doesn't change the facts which I presented in my first post at all; we also muzzle doctors from reporting on child sex abuse. AM. I. LIEING?

Which was on youtube channels I subscribe to talking about the issue.

Wait so I'm now the advocate of YouTube channels you subscribe to? Fucks sake man, am I meant to follow you around all day, experience the same things you do and then put all of that in my replies to you? Get fucked. Respond to what I am saying please.

I do think the students here have done some retarded shit and I pointed it out. However I think some of their critics swing too far the oppsoite direction, although ideologically, I lie way closer to them than the SJWs.

Errr ... okay ... thanks for sharing ... I guess. Hey wanna point out where you and I have talked about the students actions and disagreed? Hell even if we talked about it at all?

I find all too often one side using a false dichotomy, either we have free speech for everything, or it will eventually have not all, which I supposed is the "snarky" part you interpreted. All things in regards to speech lie a spectrum. That is the SJWs lie on closer to one extreme, and certain free speech advocates lie closer to the other extreme.

Every real world example shows that if you do not have it as a fundamental right, it gets taken away from you. The same umbrella the protects the KKK pamphlets in the US also guarded the anti-war protestors who burned US flags. That's remarkable. You cannot claim it is anything but.

Now some countries like Australia and various European countries lie closer to the US compared to the SJWs, but not on the exact same spot, and this is where I lie. Since free speech lies on a spectrum, its not helpful to argue this in terms of false dichotomies - either you have free speech for everything, or none at all, and then call everyone else "less free" as a perjorative. Its more useful to point out where you lie on the spectrum, and then justify why your position is superior to another person's.

That's awesome. So you lie in this perfect fantasy world where Tony Abbott's don't get elected ever then? Because that's one of my main fundamental issues with people like you, if you start mudding the waters it enables others to do it to.

Since you talk about the state putting power on its citizenry in regards to free speech, I will point out that we accept it does so all the time for certain things. For example if a state didn't have the power to sentence convicted criminals, it would be undesirable to society. We wouldn't bat an eyelid on this particular case of the state putting power on its citizens, because we consider the outcome overall to be desirable. Saying we must have the state minimise what power it can exert on its citizenship in and off itself without considering pros and cons strikes me as dogmatic.

We also have a fair and open trial with the ability of the accused to be sentenced by a jury of his peers and even then I oppose the death penalty for a myriad of reasons, one of them being I don't believe that the state should have the ability to kill its own citizenry. But I have to ask you; what's the point of this paragraph, have I not already posted (numerous times) that a fundamental right of free speech does not insulate you from consequences of said speech?

I pointed out that from any way you look at it, this is true (when coupled with our lack of guarantee for free speech), further I pointed out that I'm not opposed to criminal prosecution for speech (defamation, threats of violence, etc) because the right to free speech should not insulate you from the consequences of said free speech. All I said was that the lack of said right fundamentally poses a threat to an individuals freedom by the whim of the state.

See above.

I didn't see the part where you apologised for being a cunt, want to highlight it for me. If you're referring to your hilarious skit of the government, you and me talking, you understand that there is a difference between a 'law' and a 'right' which I'm discussing like say something enshrined in a Constitution, right?

As for the rest, pizza's here so maybe I'll get to it, maybe I won't. I lose interest in duelling with intelligent people purposefully ignoring shit I type just to get a rise.

If you're going to accuse me of trolling, report me then. Otherwise either debate in good faith or quit.

Good faith my ass. You're arguing against YouTube clips, not me. Learn to read asshole, it should be fucking easy for someone who knows Latin of all things.

[amigocabal]

An update:

https://www.facebook.com/payton.head/po ... nref=story

[Patroklos]

A classic non-apology apology, he should run for president. At least he admits is was BS, even if he can't bring himself to be honest about his foreknowledge of that fact.

[amigocabal]

A classic non-apology apology, he should run for president. At least he admits is was BS, even if he can't bring himself to be honest about his foreknowledge of that fact.

I wonder why it occurred to him to mention he was working with the National Guard.


Seriously?

[mr friendly guy]

Do you know what a strawman is? 'Course you do! You keep building them and knocking them down quite well.

For your next trick Genius, why don't you point out the strawman. But your argument is still a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Perhaps if I use terms like correlation unequal to causation or false cause fallacy, you might get it then. Who am I kidding, this is you we are talking about.

What mental deficiency do you poses that you feel the need to constantly restate my very clear position in a completely ass backwards way? Last time; no fundamental right to free speech means that we have no protection against government censorship, free speech does not in anyway imply freedom of consequences of said free speech.

Since reading comprehension isn't your strong point, you argued I misunderstood your point. I didn't because I stated exactly what you meant.

And your false dichotomy of no fundamental right to free speech means that we have no protection against government censorship is tiresome. Its tiresome because one can limit speech in one way but not limit it in another. This concept seems beyond the ability of your microcephalic brain to process.

Law : Guarantee free speech except for x,y and z

Government : Now we can censor a,b and c

mr friendly guy : Er how do you justify that? Only x,y and z is affected under the law, not a,b and c.

Government : Because we have the votes and are making a 'captains pick'

mr friendly guy : Yeah, but not because of the law affecting x,y and z. In other words, they would try it anyway, because you know, no government without hate speech laws will ever try to censor things. I mean, is the government using said law, or a different law to affect a,b,c.

Crown : Well there is a link, because the only way to guarantee free speech on a,b and c, is to also guarantee free speech to everything including x,y and z.

mr friendly guy : Why?

Crown : Because it wasn't a fundamental right to begin with, if there was a fundamental right to free speech then the government cannot go on a censorship spree.

Fixed that for you.

Ha ha ha ha. My god you are one dumb Fuckwit aren't you? Denying someone one right, does not automatically follow it denies someone another right, despite your attempt to conflate the two things as the same because they all fall under the umbrella of "free speech." The "right" to racially vilify someone is not the same as the right to know about what's going on in Australia detention centres despite you conflating the two. The fact that you think defamation laws don't do so even though they are apply more broadly than hate speech laws is the elephant in the room you struggle to address. Once again if defamation laws don't limit free speech (according to you), why should hate speech laws do so when they work the same way (using the example I gave).

Saying defamation just provides consequences to incorrect speech is about as stupid as saying its incorrect to say one cannot commit robbery, the law just provides consequences to incorrect actions. Sorry, both laws use legal sanctions to punish and deter a particular action. You're just saying defamation doesn't count, because then you would have to explain why hate speech magically leads to censorship, but defamation does not.

But we both know you're going to pretend only hate speech laws lead to government censorship, and not defamation, even if they work the same way and one provides broader coverage and has been around longer. After all, you pretty much said "I have no idea what you're talking about." But don't worry, I am sure you'll convince yourself you somehow you're correct even if you have no clue what you're debating. Because, reasons.

Where did I criticise Australia's hate speech laws? In fact the only explicit criticism I threw at Australian laws were Abbott's Asylum Seeker Abuse hush laws.

Second page, your first post to my earlier one.
My line was - those free speech advocates (I subscribe to some of their youtube channels) who argue that Australia and Canada is less free than the US because we have hate speech laws.

Your direct reply was - From a purely quantitative analysis we do. If Nation A has free speech then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is infinite. If Nation B has laws against a certain type of speech, then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is less than Nation A's. I hardly see why that's a controversial point.

Its a criticism in regards to the number of topics we can raise, which clearly covers hate speech, in reply to a line mentioning hate speech law. So yeah, you did criticise it. Lets also not forget the number of times you have waxed poetry about how this leads to government censorship. You do realise this is a messageboard and anyone can simply look back and see who said what, right? Thanks for playing.

WHY would I need to know anything about Andrew Bolt's case? You brought it up, out of the blue without context and are getting smarmy because I don't give a shit.

Because you criticised the hate speech law? You did object to the fact that it prevents a nation from raising infinite topics for discussion did you not? Apparently I am not supposed to bring up examples to support my case, even though it kills your position on defamation being different from hate speech laws. I must have forgotten when you entered the code for GOD MODE.

It does not matter to me if hate speech laws have been used to censure some right wing conservative hack. It doesn't change the facts which I presented in my first post at all; we also muzzle doctors from reporting on child sex abuse. AM. I. LIEING?

Point out where I disputed the attempt to muzzle doctors from reporting on child sex abuse, as opposed to what I really argued, that hate speech laws does not lead to the muzzling of doctors. What was this thing you accused me of? Oh that's right, the strawman. Oh the irony is killing me.

Wait so I'm now the advocate of YouTube channels you subscribe to?

No. I said I recently saw the argument appear on youtube talking about the Missouri students. What the fuck did you think it meant? Oh wait.. I see your rant below and I am ROFL.

Fucks sake man, am I meant to follow you around all day, experience the same things you do and then put all of that in my replies to you? Get fucked. Respond to what I am saying please.

Apparently pointing out I recently saw the argument on youtube = me accusing you of following me around. That's good to know. Boy do you have egg on your face. I am looking forward to you doubling down on this precious piece of stupidity.

Errr ... okay ... thanks for sharing ... I guess. Hey wanna point out where you and I have talked about the students actions and disagreed? Hell even if we talked about it at all?

I openly stated in this thread before you came along I disagreed with some of the student's actions. Its clear you also do so. I merely pointing out just because we disagree on hate speech laws, strangely enough we agree on some other stuff. Again, why is this a big deal?

Although in the broader complex, the point is that both sides take extreme positions, whereas I feel in this case the correct position is somewhere between those positions. You can disagree with that, but how the hell do you misinterpret that?

Every real world example shows that if you do not have it as a fundamental right, it gets taken away from you. The same umbrella the protects the KKK pamphlets in the US also guarded the anti-war protestors who burned US flags. That's remarkable. You cannot claim it is anything but.

I can because your argument is based on a false dichotomy. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Your argument is essentially we must protect everything in free speech or none at all. This is blatantly false as defamation laws show. Not only that, defamation laws cover a wider variety of people than hate speech laws as the former applies to everyone, while the latter applies only to racists, who are a minority. If defamation laws restricting free speech is ok, then the "it will magically limit free speech" argument cannot be applied to a laws which affect less people. Don't worry, I am sure you will use some rhetorical gobbledygook to explain why defamation laws don't really restrict free speech but hate speech laws do, even though the case I cited, once again showed they work the same way. Oh wait a minute...

That's awesome. So you lie in this perfect fantasy world where Tony Abbott's don't get elected ever then? Because that's one of my main fundamental issues with people like you, if you start mudding the waters it enables others to do it to.

Back to the slippery slope are we? Perhaps you might want to explain why defamation laws who have already "muddied the waters" using your vernacular hasn't in your opinion led to suppression of free speech. After all, government suppression of free speech and defamation laws both use legal sanctions to punish people for saying something and hence acts as a deterrent to people saying those things in the first place. Since they are already so similar, shouldn't one lead to the other because you know, by not guaranteeing free speech everywhere, we run the risk of the government censoring it somewhere else.

We also have a fair and open trial with the ability of the accused to be sentenced by a jury of his peers and even then I oppose the death penalty for a myriad of reasons, one of them being I don't believe that the state should have the ability to kill its own citizenry.

Hate speech laws also have a trial by judge or jury. Even Germany who recently jailed someone for Holocaust denial had to go through a court to do so. David Irving got his day in court when Austria charged him with Holocaust denial. Red herring anyone?

But I have to ask you; what's the point of this paragraph, have I not already posted (numerous times) that a fundamental right of free speech does not insulate you from consequences of said speech?

Let me joint the dots for you. I wasn't referring to your point about "insulating from the consequences of said speech" per se, and if you pulled your head out of your arse you could see that. I was referring to your point about limiting state power over the citizens. Why is it undesirable in this case? BTW, saying you think we have existing ways to deal with a problem doesn't follow that this other way is undesirable. Nor does it follow your way is more efficient than the alternative.

I didn't see the part where you apologised for being a cunt, want to highlight it for me. If you're referring to your hilarious skit of the government, you and me talking, you understand that there is a difference between a 'law' and a 'right' which I'm discussing like say something enshrined in a Constitution, right?

Good grief. Apparently instead of repeating an argument I made earlier, and thus saying "see above" got you all worked up. Tough shit.

Good faith my ass. You're arguing against YouTube clips, not me. Learn to read asshole, it should be fucking easy for someone who knows Latin of all things.

Ha ha ha. Oh my god, did you just ask me to learn to read when THE VERY POST YOU REPLIED TO I ALREADY MENTIONED I SAW THIS ARGUMENT RECENTLY FROM YOUTUBE CLIPS. Good grief the projection is strong in you isn't it? I am sure it makes a difference even though you argue for the same position. Here is the million dollar question. Why the fuck should it matter one iota when I pointed out I first saw this argument on youtube, when you pretty much hold a similar position and chosen to defend said argument? I wait with bated breath.

[Kon_El]

http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/4/1451.short

I might also have been synthesizing results across multiple studies. Here is a sample. Take Home: Racial discrimination exists independently of social class, hits people of color harder for highly skilled positions, with social class markers being more dependent on the position in terms of discrimination.

The nuts and bolts of this study is behind a paywall so I can't comment on it.

http://facultyhiring.uoregon.edu/files/ ... qymz6i.pdf

This one indicated that Leroy did better than Rasheed in receiving callbacks despite being a lower class "black" name but included no contrasting figure for a lower class "white" name.

All in all I feel like I wasted my time reading these as they did not include the requested control element.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The nuts and bolts of this study is behind a paywall so I can't comment on it.

Not my problem. I cannot post everything here, as it would not be covered under fair use, and there are terms of service issues with SDN.

[Crown]

For your next trick Genius, why don't you point out the strawman. But your argument is still a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Perhaps if I use terms like correlation unequal to causation or false cause fallacy, you might get it then. Who am I kidding, this is you we are talking about.

You mean despite your consistent attempt to characterise my argument that censorship in Australia is due to hate speech laws (or the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 - RDA75 from now on) rather than a lack of a guarantee to a right of free speech? Do better cunt.

And your false dichotomy of no fundamental right to free speech means that we have no protection against government censorship is tiresome. Its tiresome because one can limit speech in one way but not limit it in another. This concept seems beyond the ability of your microcephalic brain to process.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is an observable fact. The list of things censored or banned in Australia go beyond anything that can linked to RDA75, and the reason they can be banned is that there is no guarantee to a right to free speech. GTA III was banned in Australia. Not restricted to 18+, but banned until a censored version came out. Someone, somewhere sat down and decreed that I as an adult could not handle a video game that depicted violence and prostitutes. Nothing to do with RDA75, everything to do with an absence of a fundamental right to free speech.

Ha ha ha ha. My god you are one dumb Fuckwit aren't you? Denying someone one right, does not automatically follow it denies someone another right, despite your attempt to conflate the two things as the same because they all fall under the umbrella of "free speech."

That's because you're a fucking idiot. The right to free speech is coupled with the right to listen. This doesn't require any kind of deep thought to understand this, but who are you to decide who, what and why I can listen to something or not? But you know what, you bring up the grandmother and Irving down below and I'll address this point again using those examples, because they're frankly perfect examples.

The "right" to racially vilify someone is not the same as the right to know about what's going on in Australia detention centres despite you conflating the two. The fact that you think defamation laws don't do so even though they are apply more broadly than hate speech laws is the elephant in the room you struggle to address. Once again if defamation laws don't limit free speech (according to you), why should hate speech laws do so when they work the same way (using the example I gave).

Because they're morphed from a law aimed at fostering basic human decency and protection from discrimination, to nothing more than censorship simply because someone could be offended, and that's when I opt out. The idea that discussion should be limited because it may cause offence is a repugnant one.

Saying defamation just provides consequences to incorrect speech is about as stupid as saying its incorrect to say one cannot commit robbery, the law just provides consequences to incorrect actions. Sorry, both laws use legal sanctions to punish and deter a particular action. You're just saying defamation doesn't count, because then you would have to explain why hate speech magically leads to censorship, but defamation does not.

Are you still of the belief that hate speech doesn't lead to censorship, even though you brought up the German Grandma and Irving case below? I mean that is censorship correct? You understand that? Just because it's censorship we can all agree on, doesn't change the fact that it is censorship.

But we both know you're going to pretend only hate speech laws lead to government censorship, and not defamation, even if they work the same way and one provides broader coverage and has been around longer. After all, you pretty much said "I have no idea what you're talking about." But don't worry, I am sure you'll convince yourself you somehow you're correct even if you have no clue what you're debating. Because, reasons.

Baby lost its rattle? Defamation laws do not work the same across the globe. So at this point we need to state that the way they are applied in the United States (with their First Amendment) and the way they are applied in the rest of the Western World (who don't have an equivalent of the First Amendment) are completely different. Simply put the broad trend is that defamation laws in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. And this is a far more preferable system for individual liberty.

Second page, your first post to my earlier one.
My line was - those free speech advocates (I subscribe to some of their youtube channels) who argue that Australia and Canada is less free than the US because we have hate speech laws.

Your direct reply was - From a purely quantitative analysis we do. If Nation A has free speech then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is infinite. If Nation B has laws against a certain type of speech, then the number of 'topics' that can be raised is less than Nation A's. I hardly see why that's a controversial point.

Its a criticism in regards to the number of topics we can raise, which clearly covers hate speech, in reply to a line mentioning hate speech law. So yeah, you did criticise it.

That's not a criticism you dumb cunt, it's statement of fact. Neutral in judgement or tone.

Lets also not forget the number of times you have waxed poetry about how this leads to government censorship. You do realise this is a messageboard and anyone can simply look back and see who said what, right? Thanks for playing.

Oops, gotta build those strawmen again. I have repeatedly stated that the lack of a right to free speech leads to censorship, something when I mention you run around waving your arms about your head screaming slippery slope, slippery slope like a deranged toddler despite the fact that Australia has censorship laws with nothing to do with defamation or the RDA75, but exist simply because Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech.

Because you criticised the hate speech law? You did object to the fact that it prevents a nation from raising infinite topics for discussion did you not? Apparently I am not supposed to bring up examples to support my case, even though it kills your position on defamation being different from hate speech laws. I must have forgotten when you entered the code for GOD MODE.

You can 'bring up' whatever you fucking like you precious little snow flake, but it is incumbent upon you to link said example in your post to allow the reader the opportunity to review what the fuck your talking about. This is just standard form of discourse, to minimises the chances of talking at cross purposes by ensuring that both parties are using the same background information. So stop being a lazy cunt, and link to the specific examples you want to use. Or to put it another way; source your shit bitch, it's not my job to do it for you. What kind of lazy cunt are you exactly? Posting rule 15 of this board is Reference News Sources.

If you create a thread about a news article, always provide a link or a text reference to the source. Also, provide enough text excerpts from the source to permit meaningful discussion even if readers don't visit the URL.

If you can't abide by the rules of this board, I suggest you fuck off.

Point out where I disputed the attempt to muzzle doctors from reporting on child sex abuse, as opposed to what I really argued, that hate speech laws does not lead to the muzzling of doctors. What was this thing you accused me of? Oh that's right, the strawman. Oh the irony is killing me.

Literally? Call an ambulance!

I'll make it simple for you; I replied specifically to you being scornful of some random persons opinion that Australia was 'less free' than America because of our 'hate speech laws' (RDA75) by pointing out that well, they're correct from a quantitive point, but also in broader point we lack a fundamental protection for freedom of speech which is why we also censor x, y, and z. I will concede, right here, right now, that the underlined part wasn't stated in the original post as clearly as I could have. But fuck off, you didn't get it by the third or fourth time. You're just being a cunt to tire me out, and I really can't be arsed.

No. I said I recently saw the argument appear on youtube talking about the Missouri students. What the fuck did you think it meant? Oh wait.. I see your rant below and I am ROFL.

I have no idea what you fucking mean anymore, you expect me to know every thing about the Bolt case (despite not providing any kind of source) for 'reasons' and then you mention YouTube clips which also talk about what we're discussing. Am I also the metaphorical windmill for those arguments as well Don Quixote? Let me know.

Apparently pointing out I recently saw the argument on youtube = me accusing you of following me around. That's good to know. Boy do you have egg on your face. I am looking forward to you doubling down on this precious piece of stupidity.

See above.

I openly stated in this thread before you came along I disagreed with some of the student's actions. Its clear you also do so. I merely pointing out just because we disagree on hate speech laws, strangely enough we agree on some other stuff. Again, why is this a big deal?

Although in the broader complex, the point is that both sides take extreme positions, whereas I feel in this case the correct position is somewhere between those positions. You can disagree with that, but how the hell do you misinterpret that?

So a literal golden mean fallacy eh? Oh, wait, wait, let me use the latin; argumentum ad temperantiam. I'M FANCY TOO!

Then fine, this is our disagreement. Call me a dumb cunt and useless bastard in your reply if you like as much as you want, but it boils down to we disagree that freedom of speech exists in a binary state or not. Bygones.

I can because your argument is based on a false dichotomy. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Your argument is essentially we must protect everything in free speech or none at all. This is blatantly false as defamation laws show. Not only that, defamation laws cover a wider variety of people than hate speech laws as the former applies to everyone, while the latter applies only to racists, who are a minority. If defamation laws restricting free speech is ok, then the "it will magically limit free speech" argument cannot be applied to a laws which affect less people. Don't worry, I am sure you will use some rhetorical gobbledygook to explain why defamation laws don't really restrict free speech but hate speech laws do, even though the case I cited, once again showed they work the same way. Oh wait a minute...

Close but no cigar, my argument is you either have free speech or you don't. It is an either or scenario. Saying 'we have free speech except in cases X, Y, Z' automatically means that you don't have free speech.

Back to the slippery slope are we? Perhaps you might want to explain why defamation laws who have already "muddied the waters" using your vernacular hasn't in your opinion led to suppression of free speech. After all, government suppression of free speech and defamation laws both use legal sanctions to punish people for saying something and hence acts as a deterrent to people saying those things in the first place. Since they are already so similar, shouldn't one lead to the other because you know, by not guaranteeing free speech everywhere, we run the risk of the government censoring it somewhere else.

Because in a America where they have the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and defamation laws are not applied in the same way due to the First Amendment.

Hate speech laws also have a trial by judge or jury. Even Germany who recently jailed someone for Holocaust denial had to go through a court to do so. David Irving got his day in court when Austria charged him with Holocaust denial. Red herring anyone?

These are examples of 'hate speech laws' being used as state censorship, but not only of the speaker, but of the reader. Apparently Austria and Germany have decided that their adult citizenry couldn't possibly read these peoples 'opinions' because, why? Does them saying there were no gas chambers, in Auschwitz mean there aren't? Am I going to read their false history and start going on a Jew killing spree? Fucks sake, Irving was arrested in 2005 for comments he made in 1989 - which he had recanted prior to his arrest! I don't think Irving is a good person, or anyone whose historical opinion I particularly give a lot of weight to, but that's just fucking crazy.

Look, I know to any Austrian or German I'm being a dick right now, I get that. I understand that post WW2 these two nations would have a special "relationship" (is that the best word?) with the Holocaust so I get why these laws were put in place. And I'm not some libertarian tard who believes that there should be no laws ever (hell I believe Jim Jefferies said it best here when he points out that sometimes in society, in order for it to function, we have shape laws for our dumbest people) but when these laws not only muzzle the people who want to speak this, but also every adult from hearing them, I opt out. I'm a big enough boy to make my own mind up on these matters, and I certainly wouldn't trust the same people who ban video games, video games to make the judgement for me.

Let me joint the dots for you. I wasn't referring to your point about "insulating from the consequences of said speech" per se, and if you pulled your head out of your arse you could see that. I was referring to your point about limiting state power over the citizens. Why is it undesirable in this case? BTW, saying you think we have existing ways to deal with a problem doesn't follow that this other way is undesirable. Nor does it follow your way is more efficient than the alternative.

Because you've effectively given up your right to listen. You've effectively, as an adult, given up your obligation to hear something and form your own opinion on it. You have given someone authority to do it for you. Awesome, who is that then?

Ha ha ha. Oh my god, did you just ask me to learn to read when THE VERY POST YOU REPLIED TO I ALREADY MENTIONED I SAW THIS ARGUMENT RECENTLY FROM YOUTUBE CLIPS. Good grief the projection is strong in you isn't it? I am sure it makes a difference even though you argue for the same position. Here is the million dollar question. Why the fuck should it matter one iota when I pointed out I first saw this argument on youtube, when you pretty much hold a similar position and chosen to defend said argument? I wait with bated breath.

Reference what you're talking about if you want me to respond to it or watch it, or shut up. It's very simple.

[mr friendly guy]

You mean despite your consistent attempt to characterise my argument that censorship in Australia is due to hate speech laws (or the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 - RDA75 from now on) rather than a lack of a guarantee to a right of free speech? Do better cunt.

Nice speech dipshit. Too bad this has been refuted earlier. Denying one thing, does not automatically follow it denies another. Thanks for playing.

I will explain this in more detail down below in the GTA III example.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is an observable fact.

It is a false dichotomy Dumbshit for the reasons already explained. Once again, denying the right to say one thing doesn't mean it denies the right to say another. The fact that somewhere out there, someone also denies the right to say an unrelated matter, does not follow that its due to the first thing.

The list of things censored or banned in Australia go beyond anything that can linked to RDA75, and the reason they can be banned is that there is no guarantee to a right to free speech.
GTA III was banned in Australia. Not restricted to 18+, but banned until a censored version came out. Someone, somewhere sat down and decreed that I as an adult could not handle a video game that depicted violence and prostitutes. Nothing to do with RDA75, everything to do with an absence of a fundamental right to free speech.

And again, this does not preclude us from setting up a system where GTA III isn't banned but with hate speech laws existing, which by your definition fails to guarantee a right to free speech.

Let me dumb it down for you since its straining the old grey matter. I come up with a system which fails to guarantee a right to free speech (by your definitions) but the outcome is GTA III is not banned, and we have hate speech laws. Your system has GTA III not banned and certain hate speech allowed.

Why is it not possible to set up a system as I described (how many other countries with hate speech laws banned GTA III) and is such an outcome superior to yours?

That's because you're a fucking idiot. The right to free speech is coupled with the right to listen.

Boy you're one dumbfuck aren't you? Denying the right to say one thing, doesn't mean you automatically deny the right to say another. Not only is this blatantly obvious, it can be seen in countries with hate speech laws. But apparently you thought I was talking about the right to listen.

This doesn't require any kind of deep thought to understand this, but who are you to decide who, what and why I can listen to something or not?

The same argument dumbass, also applies to defamation laws. But we both know you'll have no objection to one but to the other, despite the former having a greater effect on society by virtue of it targeting more people.

But you know what, you bring up the grandmother and Irving down below and I'll address this point again using those examples, because they're frankly perfect examples.

As an example that even people accused of violating race hate laws have to go to court.

Because they're morphed from a law aimed at fostering basic human decency and protection from discrimination, to nothing more than censorship simply because someone could be offended, and that's when I opt out.

Wow, that's the first thing you said that actually made sense. Because if they do, I will opt out too. Now here is the rub. I am arguing it doesn't always follow that it will morph into such a situation as described. Which you would know if you could actually read properly.

The idea that discussion should be limited because it may cause offence is a repugnant one.

Straw meet man.

Saying defamation just provides consequences to incorrect speech is about as stupid as saying its incorrect to say one cannot commit robbery, the law just provides consequences to incorrect actions. Sorry, both laws use legal sanctions to punish and deter a particular action. You're just saying defamation doesn't count, because then you would have to explain why hate speech magically leads to censorship, but defamation does not.

Are you still of the belief that hate speech doesn't lead to censorship, even though you brought up the German Grandma and Irving case below? I mean that is censorship correct? You understand that? Just because it's censorship we can all agree on, doesn't change the fact that it is censorship.

To answer your question, I am saying censorship in one area doesn't automatically lead to censorship in another area, so your cases are an example of epic fail. Not that your point actually has anything to do with what you replied to (which I have conveniently left so anyone can see the point raised).

That is defamation laws don't lead to censorship according to you, so why should hate speech laws when they work the same way. This point you've continuously dodge, and this example of quoting my text and replying as if I raised a separate point just shows it.

Baby lost its rattle? Defamation laws do not work the same across the globe.

Really? Give that man a prize for stating the blooming obvious.

So at this point we need to state that the way they are applied in the United States (with their First Amendment) and the way they are applied in the rest of the Western World (who don't have an equivalent of the First Amendment) are completely different.

No shit Sherlock.

Simply put the broad trend is that defamation laws in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. And this is a far more preferable system for individual liberty.

Can someone be successfully sued in the US for defamation. Yes or no? If yes, does that serve as a deterrence to free speech, yes or no? If yes, why do you persist in arguing that only hate speech laws lead to censorship elsewhere?

That's not a criticism you dumb cunt, it's statement of fact. Neutral in judgement or tone.

Ok. You sir are wrong. Its not a criticism, its a statement of fact.
Oh wait, statements of fact can also be criticism, because something can never ever have more than one property, no sirree. Good grief you are one dumb motherfucker. I don't have a problem with you criticising race hate laws, but then turning around and pretending you never did is just pure bullfuckery on your part.

Oops, gotta build those strawmen again. I have repeatedly stated that the lack of a right to free speech leads to censorship, something when I mention you run around waving your arms about your head screaming slippery slope, slippery slope like a deranged toddler despite the fact that Australia has censorship laws with nothing to do with defamation or the RDA75, but exist simply because Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech.

Addressed above. Oh wait, that makes you angry if I say see above. Oh well, tough shit.

You can 'bring up' whatever you fucking like you precious little snow flake, but it is incumbent upon you to link said example in your post to allow the reader the opportunity to review what the fuck your talking about.

So for your next trip you Moronic Twat explain how I did not allow you the opportunity to review the Andrew Bolt case? Did I refuse to provide a link if challenged. Come on, shouldn't be too hard for you, after all you keep on pulling shit out of your arse.

This is just standard form of discourse, to minimises the chances of talking at cross purposes by ensuring that both parties are using the same background information. So stop being a lazy cunt, and link to the specific examples you want to use. Or to put it another way; source your shit bitch, it's not my job to do it for you. What kind of lazy cunt are you exactly? Posting rule 15 of this board is Reference News Sources.

If you create a thread about a news article, always provide a link or a text reference to the source. Also, provide enough text excerpts from the source to permit meaningful discussion even if readers don't visit the URL.

If you can't abide by the rules of this board, I suggest you fuck off.

HA HA HA HA. Oh the irony, ha ha ha. Sorry, ROFL.

Your very first post you did not source the examples you gave. Should we have a look again.

We've also banned reporting on conditions in offshore detention centres by doctors, and Canada (under Harper) banned government employed scientist from actually speaking their mind (which often intersected with the truth) if it was out of line from the party message. So not sure what you're getting snarky about (if I've mischaracterised the bolded, I apologise).

So without further ado, take your own advice and kindly fuck off.

You know, when you whine about the opponent's manner of debate rather than the actual substance, then you pretty much lost. But then this is par for the course for you right. You earlier accused me of trolling you, and when I suggested you take it up with the mods if you really believed that, you just changed the topic. LOL.

I'll make it simple for you; I replied specifically to you being scornful of some random persons opinion that Australia was 'less free' than America because of our 'hate speech laws' (RDA75) by pointing out that well, they're correct from a quantitive point, but also in broader point we lack a fundamental protection for freedom of speech which is why we also censor x, y, and z. I will concede, right here, right now, that the underlined part wasn't stated in the original post as clearly as I could have. But fuck off, you didn't get it by the third or fourth time. You're just being a cunt to tire me out, and I really can't be arsed.

Really? Ok then I will play along. Has the Australian government assassinated our own citizens without a trial like Obama did? Do we engage in locking up our citizens without trial in a foreign detention centre? I think we both know the answer to that. So how is it you can say with a straight face we are "less free" than the US just because we have hate speech laws.

I have no idea what you fucking mean anymore, you expect me to know every thing about the Bolt case (despite not providing any kind of source) for 'reasons' and then you mention YouTube clips which also talk about what we're discussing. Am I also the metaphorical windmill for those arguments as well Don Quixote? Let me know.

Well the reason you don't know what I fucking mean, is because you're fucking stupid. Wow that was difficult. I will explain it for you. See there is this thing called the internet and... oh fuck it. I saw arguments on YT, which were related to this news thread's newstory and worthy of discussion so I posted it. You agreed with the position of those YT arguments and put forward your own arguments. Again why the obsession because I saw these arguments recently on youtube? Lets face it, you misread what I wrote, attributed some significance which wasn't there and are now whining when it turns out it was just fire without smoke.

BTW - lots of people state cases here without a source, INCLUDING YOURSELF as I demonstrated. This is not a problem as long as someone asks for a link and I provide it when challenged. Earlier you did not ask for a link, and continuously avoided the point, so at that point, why would I assume you wanted one?

So a literal golden mean fallacy eh? Oh, wait, wait, let me use the latin; argumentum ad temperantiam. I'M FANCY TOO!

No its not. A golden mean fallacy is when you AUTOMATICALLY assume the correct position must lie between two extremes, not when you consider the evidence and then conclude the correct position just happens to lie between them.

No charge. This piece of education is free for you.

Then fine, this is our disagreement. Call me a dumb cunt and useless bastard in your reply if you like as much as you want, but it boils down to we disagree that freedom of speech exists in a binary state or not. Bygones.

I guess that's an accurate summary of our disagreement. I will clarify that what we call "free speech" is limited to various extents because of the presence of defamation laws. Since we all accept those laws as not impinging on "free speech," its silly to say hate speech laws do when they do the same thing and affect less people.

Close but no cigar, my argument is you either have free speech or you don't. It is an either or scenario. Saying 'we have free speech except in cases X, Y, Z' automatically means that you don't have free speech.

Then I will add, no society with defamation laws has "free speech," because they are intrinsically limited by defamation laws. This varies between degrees, but even piss poor defamation laws with a success rate (of winning the case)barely above zero, still impinges.

Because in a America where they have the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and defamation laws are not applied in the same way due to the First Amendment.

They don't have to be applied exactly the same way, only sufficiently to form a deterrence to saying whatever the hell you want. Then it becomes a matter of degrees.

These are examples of 'hate speech laws' being used as state censorship, but not only of the speaker, but of the reader. Apparently Austria and Germany have decided that their adult citizenry couldn't possibly read these peoples 'opinions' because, why?

The same broad reasons when we consider why we should do this and that. Weighing the pros and cons.

Does them saying there were no gas chambers, in Auschwitz mean there aren't?

I am going to hazard a guess hate speech laws aren't to prevent people altering history. Its just a guess mind you.

Am I going to read their false history and start going on a Jew killing spree? Fucks sake, Irving was arrested in 2005 for comments he made in 1989 - which he had recanted prior to his arrest! I don't think Irving is a good person, or anyone whose historical opinion I particularly give a lot of weight to, but that's just fucking crazy.

Cry me a fucking river.

Look, I know to any Austrian or German I'm being a dick right now, I get that.

Only to Germans and Austrians? Well you sure fooled me with your nondickish behaviour.

Because you've effectively given up your right to listen. You've effectively, as an adult, given up your obligation to hear something and form your own opinion on it. You have given someone authority to do it for you. Awesome, who is that then?

This begs the question, why is the right to listen outweigh the other consequences hate speech prevents.

Reference what you're talking about if you want me to respond to it or watch it, or shut up. It's very simple.

Let me remind you my microcephalic friend, that you jumped in on what I was saying based on only a little snippet. You were quite happy to comment without demanding to watch the whole clip, nor should you need to see the whole clip to debate the argument I opposed since I reproduced it. Even if I made a mistake and reproduced it wrongly, you were still happy to debate the "wrong argument" on its own merits. Your obsession with the fact that I mentioned in passing I saw a particular argument on YT and reproduced it in this thread because I found it worthy of discussion puzzles me.

[Crown]

You mean despite your consistent attempt to characterise my argument that censorship in Australia is due to hate speech laws (or the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 - RDA75 from now on) rather than a lack of a guarantee to a right of free speech? Do better cunt.

Nice speech dipshit. Too bad this has been refuted earlier. Denying one thing, does not automatically follow it denies another. Thanks for playing.

I see you will just repeat yourself ad infinitum (that was more Latin) until I die eh? Are we, or are we not talking about the specific topic of freedom of speech in Australia vs America? If the answer is yes, concede, if the answer is no, I'll fuck off.

It is a false dichotomy Dumbshit for the reasons already explained. Once again, denying the right to say one thing doesn't mean it denies the right to say another. The fact that somewhere out there, someone also denies the right to say an unrelated matter, does not follow that its due to the first thing.

Right, so despite all evidence to the contrary with the specific example of Australia (which you conveniently ignore) it's a false dichotomoy .. You're a waste of fucking time.

The list of things censored or banned in Australia go beyond anything that can linked to RDA75, and the reason they can be banned is that there is no guarantee to a right to free speech. GTA III was banned in Australia. Not restricted to 18+, but banned until a censored version came out. Someone, somewhere sat down and decreed that I as an adult could not handle a video game that depicted violence and prostitutes. Nothing to do with RDA75, everything to do with an absence of a fundamental right to free speech.

And again, this does not preclude us from setting up a system where GTA III isn't banned but with hate speech laws existing, which by your definition fails to guarantee a right to free speech.

WAIT. We're talking in hypothetical abstracts? HOLY SHIT. All this time I thought we were discussing real fucking world examples! Yeah, sure mate set up your unicorn fairy land, let me know when it's ready and I'll come join!

Let me dumb it down for you since its straining the old grey matter. I come up with a system which fails to guarantee a right to free speech (by your definitions) but the outcome is GTA III is not banned, and we have hate speech laws. Your system has GTA III not banned and certain hate speech allowed.
Why is it not possible to set up a system as I described (how many other countries with hate speech laws banned GTA III) and is such an outcome superior to yours?

Give me an example of such a system/law and we can discuss it. But if you're just talking in the abstract 'how come' scenario then it is my belief that in a free society; while I concede that certain behaviours must be curtailed for for the benefit of said society (violence in all its manifestation for example - with the exception of self defence), thought and expression should be the only things that are never regulated. You can think and say what you will. Which is in line with the SCOTUS definition of Free Speech; everything is acceptable that doesn't promote imminent violence.

That's because you're a fucking idiot. The right to free speech is coupled with the right to listen.

Boy you're one dumbfuck aren't you? Denying the right to say one thing, doesn't mean you automatically deny the right to say another. Not only is this blatantly obvious, it can be seen in countries with hate speech laws. But apparently you thought I was talking about the right to listen.

The point is, you're ignoring the right to listen (we talk about this again later).

This doesn't require any kind of deep thought to understand this, but who are you to decide who, what and why I can listen to something or not?

The same argument dumbass, also applies to defamation laws. But we both know you'll have no objection to one but to the other, despite the former having a greater effect on society by virtue of it targeting more people.

Lets discuss this in a real world example; Trumps infamous all Mexican's are rapists and drug mules speech. You would prefer a system where it would be impossible for Donald Trump to say this? WHY? This is the single greatest thing I've heard in my life time. I no longer have to wonder if Donald Trump and his supporters are racist navel gazing morons, I know it as a fact. But in your scenario, Donald Trump would use the usual Republican racist code speech to keep the ambiguity. This speech is the greatest public service announcement to the mindless middle in America, and the conservative Latinos why they should never vote Republican.

Because they're morphed from a law aimed at fostering basic human decency and protection from discrimination, to nothing more than censorship simply because someone could be offended, and that's when I opt out.

Wow, that's the first thing you said that actually made sense. Because if they do, I will opt out too. Now here is the rub. I am arguing it doesn't always follow that it will morph into such a situation as described. Which you would know if you could actually read properly.

The idea that discussion should be limited because it may cause offence is a repugnant one.

Straw meet man.

Have a read of the RDA75 Section 18C; "(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

I'll save you some time if you want my concession because I emphasised may and the statue refers to 'reasonably likely to' you can have it now, I will however point out that I'm thankful beyond belief that the word 'religion' was left out of the RDA75 because that would have been a clusterfuck especially when you consider how the Ben Affleck and regressive lefts of the world are trying to link a criticism of Islam as synonymous with an attack against brown people.

Saying defamation just provides consequences to incorrect speech is about as stupid as saying its incorrect to say one cannot commit robbery, the law just provides consequences to incorrect actions. Sorry, both laws use legal sanctions to punish and deter a particular action. You're just saying defamation doesn't count, because then you would have to explain why hate speech magically leads to censorship, but defamation does not.

Are you still of the belief that hate speech doesn't lead to censorship, even though you brought up the German Grandma and Irving case below? I mean that is censorship correct? You understand that? Just because it's censorship we can all agree on, doesn't change the fact that it is censorship.

To answer your question, I am saying censorship in one area doesn't automatically lead to censorship in another area, so your cases are an example of epic fail. Not that your point actually has anything to do with what you replied to (which I have conveniently left so anyone can see the point raised).

Provide me one real world example of a nation state that has no guarantee to free speech does have defamation and hate speech laws, but no other forms of censorship.

That is defamation laws don't lead to censorship according to you, so why should hate speech laws when they work the same way. This point you've continuously dodge, and this example of quoting my text and replying as if I raised a separate point just shows it.

Well they don't. We discuss this further below, but defamation laws in the United States where First Amendment rights need to be taken into consideration are different than the Australia. And the RDA75 is not inline with United States defamation laws, it is far more Orwellian that that. In the US, everything is free speech so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

<snip witty repertoire>

Simply put the broad trend is that defamation laws in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. And this is a far more preferable system for individual liberty.

Can someone be successfully sued in the US for defamation. Yes or no? If yes, does that serve as a deterrence to free speech, yes or no? If yes, why do you persist in arguing that only hate speech laws lead to censorship elsewhere?

Yes, no and see no.

That's not a criticism you dumb cunt, it's statement of fact. Neutral in judgement or tone.

Ok. You sir are wrong. Its not a criticism, its a statement of fact.
Oh wait, statements of fact can also be criticism, because something can never ever have more than one property, no sirree. Good grief you are one dumb motherfucker. I don't have a problem with you criticising race hate laws, but then turning around and pretending you never did is just pure bullfuckery on your part.

Brushing up on your mind reading skills there Mystic Meg?

Oops, gotta build those strawmen again. I have repeatedly stated that the lack of a right to free speech leads to censorship, something when I mention you run around waving your arms about your head screaming slippery slope, slippery slope like a deranged toddler despite the fact that Australia has censorship laws with nothing to do with defamation or the RDA75, but exist simply because Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech.

Addressed above. Oh wait, that makes you angry if I say see above. Oh well, tough shit.

Where? Oh you mean in your made up fantasy world, but not anything to do with America, Australia, Canada or Western Europe? Good one champ.

You can 'bring up' whatever you fucking like you precious little snow flake, but it is incumbent upon you to link said example in your post to allow the reader the opportunity to review what the fuck your talking about.

So for your next trip you Moronic Twat explain how I did not allow you the opportunity to review the Andrew Bolt case? Did I refuse to provide a link if challenged. Come on, shouldn't be too hard for you, after all you keep on pulling shit out of your arse.

It went like this;

You : Randomly throws the name about in a conversation.

Me : I ignore it.

You : Bring it up again.

Me : I say what the fuck are you talking about.

You : OMG YOU N00b! Learn something, HIGH PROFILE, HIGH PROFILE.

Me : Points out if you want me to discuss a specific example you, should link it.

You : But I didn't refuse to link it, did I?

No, no you didn't. You also, having had the opportunity, still failed to link it! What a sad, sad little person you are.

This is just standard form of discourse, to minimises the chances of talking at cross purposes by ensuring that both parties are using the same background information. So stop being a lazy cunt, and link to the specific examples you want to use. Or to put it another way; source your shit bitch, it's not my job to do it for you. What kind of lazy cunt are you exactly? Posting rule 15 of this board is Reference News Sources.

If you create a thread about a news article, always provide a link or a text reference to the source. Also, provide enough text excerpts from the source to permit meaningful discussion even if readers don't visit the URL.

If you can't abide by the rules of this board, I suggest you fuck off.

HA HA HA HA. Oh the irony, ha ha ha. Sorry, ROFL.

Your very first post you did not source the examples you gave. Should we have a look again.

We've also banned reporting on conditions in offshore detention centres by doctors, and Canada (under Harper) banned government employed scientist from actually speaking their mind (which often intersected with the truth) if it was out of line from the party message. So not sure what you're getting snarky about (if I've mischaracterised the bolded, I apologise).

So without further ado, take your own advice and kindly fuck off.

Here you go, knock your socks off sport. Just note, since you've already acknowledged the Abbott Governments anti-whistle blower laws actually existing, I took it to mean you didn't need any posting on it by me. Your welcome champ.

You know, when you whine about the opponent's manner of debate rather than the actual substance, then you pretty much lost. But then this is par for the course for you right. You earlier accused me of trolling you, and when I suggested you take it up with the mods if you really believed that, you just changed the topic. LOL.

Why would I need to bring it up with the mods? What's that going to do? Why would I waste their time?

I'll make it simple for you; I replied specifically to you being scornful of some random persons opinion that Australia was 'less free' than America because of our 'hate speech laws' (RDA75) by pointing out that well, they're correct from a quantitive point, but also in broader point we lack a fundamental protection for freedom of speech which is why we also censor x, y, and z. I will concede, right here, right now, that the underlined part wasn't stated in the original post as clearly as I could have. But fuck off, you didn't get it by the third or fourth time. You're just being a cunt to tire me out, and I really can't be arsed.

Really? Ok then I will play along. Has the Australian government assassinated our own citizens without a trial like Obama did? Do we engage in locking up our citizens without trial in a foreign detention centre? I think we both know the answer to that.

Oh, I see so now we are talking about real world America freedom vs Australia freedom, but not earlier? So earlier was the hypothetical unicorn utopia which you created, but now we're doing the horse trading of freedom between 'Merica and 'Straya?

So how is it you can say with a straight face we are "less free" than the US just because we have hate speech laws.

Because our government censors speech it deems unpalatable depriving us an opportunity to use our own judgement to decide whether it is right or wrong, where in America if something isn't an imminent call to violence I can always read the very same opinion if I want to. Am I wrong?

I have no idea what you fucking mean anymore, you expect me to know every thing about the Bolt case (despite not providing any kind of source) for 'reasons' and then you mention YouTube clips which also talk about what we're discussing. Am I also the metaphorical windmill for those arguments as well Don Quixote? Let me know.

Well the reason you don't know what I fucking mean, is because you're fucking stupid. Wow that was difficult. I will explain it for you. See there is this thing called the internet and... oh fuck it. I saw arguments on YT, which were related to this news thread's newstory and worthy of discussion so I posted it. You agreed with the position of those YT arguments and put forward your own arguments. Again why the obsession because I saw these arguments recently on youtube? Lets face it, you misread what I wrote, attributed some significance which wasn't there and are now whining when it turns out it was just fire without smoke.

BTW - lots of people state cases here without a source, INCLUDING YOURSELF as I demonstrated. This is not a problem as long as someone asks for a link and I provide it when challenged. Earlier you did not ask for a link, and continuously avoided the point, so at that point, why would I assume you wanted one?

And YET still no link provided in this reply. Amazing.

So a literal golden mean fallacy eh? Oh, wait, wait, let me use the latin; argumentum ad temperantiam. I'M FANCY TOO!

No its not. A golden mean fallacy is when you AUTOMATICALLY assume the correct position must lie between two extremes, not when you consider the evidence and then conclude the correct position just happens to lie between them.

No charge. This piece of education is free for you.

You demonstrably refuse to consider evidence. Every real world example that I know of that fails to have an enshrined right to freedom speech also has censorship laws on issues that have nothing to do with defamation or hate speech. The key phrase here is that I know of. You have an opportunity here to actually educate me by providing such an example.

Until then all the evidence points to the only way to ensure no censorship is to have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

Then fine, this is our disagreement. Call me a dumb cunt and useless bastard in your reply if you like as much as you want, but it boils down to we disagree that freedom of speech exists in a binary state or not. Bygones.

I guess that's an accurate summary of our disagreement. I will clarify that what we call "free speech" is limited to various extents because of the presence of defamation laws. Since we all accept those laws as not impinging on "free speech," its silly to say hate speech laws do when they do the same thing and affect less people.

Close but no cigar, my argument is you either have free speech or you don't. It is an either or scenario. Saying 'we have free speech except in cases X, Y, Z' automatically means that you don't have free speech.

Then I will add, no society with defamation laws has "free speech," because they are intrinsically limited by defamation laws. This varies between degrees, but even piss poor defamation laws with a success rate (of winning the case)barely above zero, still impinges.

Because in a America where they have the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and defamation laws are not applied in the same way due to the First Amendment.

They don't have to be applied exactly the same way, only sufficiently to form a deterrence to saying whatever the hell you want. Then it becomes a matter of degrees.

Yeah, but I don't know of any defamation case that could be brought up against Trump as an example, and I wouldn't want one. If, he however said specific Mexican person X is a rapist and drug mule then a libel suite can be lunched.

These are examples of 'hate speech laws' being used as state censorship, but not only of the speaker, but of the reader. Apparently Austria and Germany have decided that their adult citizenry couldn't possibly read these peoples 'opinions' because, why?

The same broad reasons when we consider why we should do this and that. Weighing the pros and cons.

But in any scenario where censorship is allowed pre-emptively, that has been taken away from me.

Does them saying there were no gas chambers, in Auschwitz mean there aren't?

I am going to hazard a guess hate speech laws aren't to prevent people altering history. Its just a guess mind you.

Am I going to read their false history and start going on a Jew killing spree? Fucks sake, Irving was arrested in 2005 for comments he made in 1989 - which he had recanted prior to his arrest! I don't think Irving is a good person, or anyone whose historical opinion I particularly give a lot of weight to, but that's just fucking crazy.

Cry me a fucking river.

No. Because that would dehydrate me.

Look, I know to any Austrian or German I'm being a dick right now, I get that.

Only to Germans and Austrians? Well you sure fooled me with your nondickish behaviour.

I lol'd.

Because you've effectively given up your right to listen. You've effectively, as an adult, given up your obligation to hear something and form your own opinion on it. You have given someone authority to do it for you. Awesome, who is that then?

This begs the question, why is the right to listen outweigh the other consequences hate speech prevents.

Same reason why everyone has a right to be offended but no right to not be offended. The later when taken up by the loonies leads to some fucking horrible scenarios (I take it I don't have to link any SJW or Right Wing Nutjobs YouTube clip for this do I?) and even when not taken up by the loonies, it's still an ass backward way to set up a society.

As an aside; I think this is where Political Correctness goes off the deep end. What started off as an effort to make us all more empathetic of other people, to be polite and decent has morphed into thought policing. I can't deal with that shit.

Reference what you're talking about if you want me to respond to it or watch it, or shut up. It's very simple.

Let me remind you my microcephalic friend, that you jumped in on what I was saying based on only a little snippet. You were quite happy to comment without demanding to watch the whole clip, nor should you need to see the whole clip to debate the argument I opposed since I reproduced it. Even if I made a mistake and reproduced it wrongly, you were still happy to debate the "wrong argument" on its own merits. Your obsession with the fact that I mentioned in passing I saw a particular argument on YT and reproduced it in this thread because I found it worthy of discussion puzzles me.

If I only commented - deliberately on a 'snippet' doesn't that clue you in to something? I even said, hey if I'm taking this out of context sorry but ...

[mr friendly guy]

I see you will just repeat yourself ad infinitum (that was more Latin) until I die eh? Are we, or are we not talking about the specific topic of freedom of speech in Australia vs America? If the answer is yes, concede, if the answer is no, I'll fuck off.

It should be obvious the answer is yes when talking about Australia being less free than the US, and the answer is no when we’re talking about the benefits and disadvantages of a system where freedom to speak is limited in some instance vs your ideal system where more than can be said. Duh.

Right, so despite all evidence to the contrary with the specific example of Australia (which you conveniently ignore) it's a false dichotomoy .. You're a waste of fucking time.

No, its fallacious because you haven’t actually explain why one is due to the other aside from the fact that both exists so they must be related.

WAIT. We're talking in hypothetical abstracts? HOLY SHIT. All this time I thought we were discussing real fucking world examples! Yeah, sure mate set up your unicorn fairy land, let me know when it's ready and I'll come join!

Oh no, you got me man. I better concede to your intellectual brilliance now. If only I mentioned about countries not banning GTA III and also have hate speech laws. Oh wait I did.
Me - Why is it not possible to set up a system as I described (how many other countries with hate speech laws banned GTA III) and is such an outcome superior to yours?
I am sure you can use CTRL F to find where I said that especially WHEN YOU QUOTED ME SAYING THAT LATER IN THIS VERY REPLY. Good grief, the comedy just writes itself.
BTW – Germany for example has not banned GTA III (at least according to a quick search on which countries have banned which games).
But that was just me making fun of your poor reading comprehension.. Because even if I didn’t, and since you want to bring up hypotheticals, why isn’t it possible for me to come up with a system which has hate speech laws and doesn’t ban GTA III? Even if you somehow thought it wasn’t possible, the fact real world examples exist proves your thinking wrong. I am however very curious as to why you think such an example cannot happen.

Give me an example of such a system/law and we can discuss it.

An example of a country with hate speech laws which didn’t ban GTA III. Germany. Thanks for playing.

But I will admit that’s not really that satisfying smacking you down that way, taking advantage of your piss poor reading comprehension. I think what you want to demand (and correct me if I am wrong) is have a country which system is exactly how I would like. That would be limit somethings eg hate speech similar to how we do it, but not others ie allow certain games like GTA III.
On a side note, I can’t see a particular reason to ban GTA III based on what little I know of it, but I am not going to say a game should never ever be banned because I want to look at the arguments for and against before making a decision.

Back to the earlier point, I don’t think we can find any country which does exactly like how we want in regards to any topic, or else no one ever would be clamouring for change. So I can’t think of a country which limits things in exactly how I want. However the major point of contention still stands, just because a country limits one thing, it doesn’t follow it does another. The fact that not all countries with hate speech laws ban GTA III demonstrates this.

But if you're just talking in the abstract 'how come' scenario then it is my belief that in a free society; while I concede that certain behaviours must be curtailed for for the benefit of said society (violence in all its manifestation for example - with the exception of self defence), thought and expression should be the only things that are never regulated. You can think and say what you will. Which is in line with the SCOTUS definition of Free Speech; everything is acceptable that doesn't promote imminent violence.

Ok, lets talk in the abstract then.
I think laws are a reflection of the values of the society that created them. Thus laws try their best to navigate the sometimes competing values of society. Using a neutral example, environmental laws must navigate the competing values between environmental concerns and the concerns of industry. The idea is that the final law, tries to maximise utility for society and because of this is “fair.”

In pluralistic societies one very important concept is that of egalitarianism. Assuming you aren’t going to argue egalitarianism is undesirable, then race hate laws are a reflection of this value in society. However we also have values of allowing people to say what they want. At the end of the day, the law must compromise and find the best solution between these competing values. Defamation laws tries to balance the right to free speech with the protection of an individual’s reputation. Hate speech laws tries to balance these as well as egalitarianism.

Having hate speech isn’t something I think of lightly, and I suspect the societies that introduced them did not either. As a general rule, people consider the pros and cons of a policy, and hate speech laws are no exception.

If we are going to talk about the pros and cons of such a law, I really can’t see the benefit of racially vilifying someone. This is not the same as criticising an idea like religion. A person can change their religion or reform it. A person cannot change their race. Religious aren’t automatically good or bad, it depends on what the ideas say. A person is not good or bad because of their race. They’re good or bad because of their ideals and actions. Criticising an idea can point out weaknesses in said ideas, which is beneficial to society. Vilifying a person on race gives exactly what benefit to society? Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t some negatives to race hate laws, and certainly one could argue for unintended consequences.

So lets through the negatives you’ve mentioned.
1. Limits the power of the government of its citizens. This is merely asserted as good without any justification why. You’ve pretty much stated the government should limit things like violence and so presumably you see that as good. So government power over its citizens in and of itself its not necessarily bad. It depends on what its use for, hence… and this is the kicker, you cannot appeal to limiting government power over its citizens in and of itself as a justification. Which you did on the second page, 22nd post before you start whining.

2. Vague nebulous things about leading to censorship along with awesome spiel about the US system protects this shit.

Firstly, defamation laws also work in similar manner. You have repeatedly asserted it doesn’t restrict free speech but I will touch on that later. However you haven’t really countered the fact that hate speech laws do similar things. So we have two possibilities – a) defamation restricts free speech (which you deny), so why whine about hate speech laws for doing the same and covers even less or b) defamation doesn’t restrict free speech, so why should hate speech laws when they work the same way.

Secondly at the risk of repeating myself, you have pointed out A and B exist, therefore one causes the other. I don’t know how to drill that into you why correlation unequal to causation. So I will try a different track.

Under your hypothesis, snigger, the US shouldn’t experience these things or the government wouldn’t be encouraged to try this shit, because you know, free speech is guaranteed. Unfortunately it does do these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshi ... ted_States
From wikileaks to porn, it fucking does engage in censorship. Moreover its press freeom, a requirement to counter act censorship, ranks lower than countries with hate speech laws according to Reporters without borders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Austria is ranked 12, Germany 14, Australia 28. The US ranked 46.
I am not going to argue whether the US was right or wrong in its censorship, only that your theory generates certain predictions, which are simply not borne out by reality. Which suggests that your “guarantee of free speech,” isn’t as powerful as you think it is, and the urge to censor is a human response. In which case I would argue, then this “guarantee of free speech” leading to protection against censorship, can’t be used as an argument against hate speech laws.

Which brings me to the talk the talk of how we would get censorship for anything that is considered offensive, and this gets tedious. I am not advocating hate speech laws because some speech is offensive to someone (although it no doubt is), I am arguing for it because there is no benefit to letting these people preach hate and it runs counter to the values of egalitarianism.

The point is, you're ignoring the right to listen (we talk about this again later).

Oh for fuck’s sake. It was clear I was referring to one thing (why denying one’s ability to x, doesn’t follow that it will the ability to say y(, you disputed it and then say I am wrong because of a totally different thing ie the right to listen. Are you so full of yourself you can’t see why people might find you somewhat going off track at best, dishonest at worse?

The same argument dumbass, also applies to defamation laws. But we both know you'll have no objection to one but to the other, despite the former having a greater effect on society by virtue of it targeting more people.

Lets discuss this in a real world example; Trumps infamous all Mexican's are rapists and drug mules speech. You would prefer a system where it would be impossible for Donald Trump to say this? WHY? This is the single greatest thing I've heard in my life time. I no longer have to wonder if Donald Trump and his supporters are racist navel gazing morons, I know it as a fact. But in your scenario, Donald Trump would use the usual Republican racist code speech to keep the ambiguity. This speech is the greatest public service announcement to the mindless middle in America, and the conservative Latinos why they should never vote Republican.

I am just going to start by pointing out that this doesn’t actually touch on my point that your argument of “who are you to decide who gets to listen to this and that,” also applies to defamation laws which cover more people than hate speech laws, and hence its strange you object to the latter.

I would also point out, that its not so much that Trump wouldn’t be able to say it, but he could be sued for saying it. Thus we not only know he is a racist, he also faces legal sanctions. So both your concerns and mine are taken care of. Win win. And before you say, ah well he will use racist code speak, Trump may be a whiz on financial stuff (depending on who you ask) but in this example he would be too fucking stupid to keep his trap shut.
I will accept that under my “rule”, people might interpret that as saying Trump can’t say such and such, the same way people say drink driving laws say you can’t drink and drive, even though legal sanctions apply only after you have done the deed.

Have a read of the RDA75 Section 18C; "(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

I'll save you some time if you want my concession because I emphasised may and the statue refers to 'reasonably likely to' you can have it now, I will however point out that I'm thankful beyond belief that the word 'religion' was left out of the RDA75 because that would have been a clusterfuck especially when you consider how the Ben Affleck and regressive lefts of the world are trying to link a criticism of Islam as synonymous with an attack against brown people.

I will be generous with you concession and simply leave this part of the argument be. Also since I detest what certain parts of the left have become with the “regressive” left so we ‘re pretty much in agreement there. And also I didn’t want religion included which I explained above. So again an agreement there.

Provide me one real world example of a nation state that has no guarantee to free speech does have defamation and hate speech laws, but no other forms of censorship.

As noted earlier, even the US with its guarantee of free speech engages in censorship. So using the guarantee of free speech argument fails. Its simply not as strong as you assert. Thus there is no reason to assume censorship done outside of hate speech laws is because it fails to guarantee free speech, as opposed to because of other political motives.

I see you will just repeat yourself ad infinitum (that was more Latin) until I die eh? Are we, or are we not talking about the specific topic of freedom of speech in Australia vs America? If the answer is yes, concede, if the answer is no, I'll fuck off.

It should be obvious the answer is yes when talking about Australia being less free than the US, and the answer is no when we’re talking about the benefits and disadvantages of a system where freedom to speak is limited in some instance vs your ideal system where more than can be said. Duh.

Right, so despite all evidence to the contrary with the specific example of Australia (which you conveniently ignore) it's a false dichotomoy .. You're a waste of fucking time.

No, its fallacious because you haven’t actually explain why one is due to the other aside from the fact that both exists so they must be related.

But if you're just talking in the abstract 'how come' scenario then it is my belief that in a free society; while I concede that certain behaviours must be curtailed for for the benefit of said society (violence in all its manifestation for example - with the exception of self defence), thought and expression should be the only things that are never regulated. You can think and say what you will. Which is in line with the SCOTUS definition of Free Speech; everything is acceptable that doesn't promote imminent violence.

Ok, lets talk in the abstract then.
I think laws are a reflection of the values of the society that created them. Thus laws try their best to navigate the sometimes competing values of society. Using a neutral example, environmental laws must navigate the competing values between environmental concerns and the concerns of industry. The idea is that the final law, tries to maximise utility for society and because of this is “fair.”

In pluralistic societies one very important concept is that of egalitarianism. Assuming you aren’t going to argue egalitarianism is undesirable, then race hate laws are a reflection of this value in society. However we also have values of allowing people to say what they want. At the end of the day, the law must compromise and find the best solution between these competing values. Defamation laws tries to balance the right to free speech with the protection of an individual’s reputation. Hate speech laws tries to balance these as well as egalitarianism.

Having hate speech isn’t something I think of lightly, and I suspect the societies that introduced them did not either. As a general rule, people consider the pros and cons of a policy, and hate speech laws are no exception.

If we are going to talk about the pros and cons of such a law, I really can’t see the benefit of racially vilifying someone. This is not the same as criticising an idea like religion. A person can change their religion or reform it. A person cannot change their race. Religious aren’t automatically good or bad, it depends on what the ideas say. A person is not good or bad because of their race. They’re good or bad because of their ideals and actions. Criticising an idea can point out weaknesses in said ideas, which is beneficial to society. Vilifying a person on race gives exactly what benefit to society? Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t some negatives to race hate laws, and certainly one could argue for unintended consequences.

So lets through the negatives you’ve mentioned.
1. Limits the power of the government of its citizens. This is merely asserted as good without any justification why. You’ve pretty much stated the government should limit things like violence and so presumably you see that as good. So government power over its citizens in and of itself its not necessarily bad. It depends on what its use for, hence… and this is the kicker, you cannot appeal to limiting government power over its citizens in and of itself as a justification. Which you did on the second page, 22nd post before you start whining.

2. Vague nebulous things about leading to censorship along with awesome spiel about the US system protects this shit.

Firstly, defamation laws also work in similar manner. You have repeatedly asserted it doesn’t restrict free speech but I will touch on that later. However you haven’t really countered the fact that hate speech laws do similar things. So we have two possibilities – a) defamation restricts free speech (which you deny), so why whine about hate speech laws for doing the same and covers even less or b) defamation doesn’t restrict free speech, so why should hate speech laws when they work the same way.

Secondly at the risk of repeating myself, you have pointed out A and B exist, therefore one causes the other. I don’t know how to drill that into you why correlation unequal to causation. So I will try a different track.

Under your hypothesis, snigger, the US shouldn’t experience these things or the government wouldn’t be encouraged to try this shit, because you know, free speech is guaranteed. Unfortunately it does do these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshi ... ted_States
From wikileaks to porn, it fucking does engage in censorship. Moreover its press freeom, a requirement to counter act censorship, ranks lower than countries with hate speech laws according to Reporters without borders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Austria is ranked 12, Germany 14, Australia 28. The US ranked 46.
I am not going to argue whether the US was right or wrong in its censorship, only that your theory generates certain predictions, which are simply not borne out by reality. Which suggests that your “guarantee of free speech,” isn’t as powerful as you think it is, and the urge to censor is a human response. In which case I would argue, then this “guarantee of free speech” leading to protection against censorship, can’t be used as an argument against hate speech laws because it doesn’t work.

Which brings me to the talk the talk of how we would get censorship for anything that is considered offensive, and this gets tedious. I am not advocating hate speech laws because some speech is offensive to someone (although it no doubt is), I am arguing for it because there is no benefit to letting these people preach hate and it runs counter to the values of egalitarianism.

The point is, you're ignoring the right to listen (we talk about this again later).

Oh for fuck’s sake. It was clear I was referring to one thing (why denying one’s ability to x, doesn’t follow that it will the ability to say y(, you disputed it and then say I am wrong because of a totally different thing ie the right to listen. Are you so full of yourself you can’t see why people might find you somewhat going off track at best, dishonest at worse?

The same argument dumbass, also applies to defamation laws. But we both know you'll have no objection to one but to the other, despite the former having a greater effect on society by virtue of it targeting more people.

Lets discuss this in a real world example; Trumps infamous all Mexican's are rapists and drug mules speech. You would prefer a system where it would be impossible for Donald Trump to say this? WHY? This is the single greatest thing I've heard in my life time. I no longer have to wonder if Donald Trump and his supporters are racist navel gazing morons, I know it as a fact. But in your scenario, Donald Trump would use the usual Republican racist code speech to keep the ambiguity. This speech is the greatest public service announcement to the mindless middle in America, and the conservative Latinos why they should never vote Republican.

I am just going to start by pointing out that this doesn’t actually touch on my point that your argument of “who are you to decide who gets to listen to this and that,” also applies to defamation laws which cover more people than hate speech laws, and hence its strange you object to the latter.

I would also point out, that its not so much that Trump wouldn’t be able to say it, but he could be sued for saying it. Thus we not only know he is a racist, he also faces legal sanctions. So both your concerns and mine are taken care of. Win win. And before you say, ah well he will use racist code speak, Trump may be a whiz on financial stuff (depending on who you ask) but in this example he would be too fucking stupid to keep his trap shut.
I will accept that under my “rule”, people might interpret that as saying Trump can’t say such and such, the same way people say drink driving laws say you can’t drink and drive, even though legal sanctions apply only after you have done the deed.

Have a read of the RDA75 Section 18C; "(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

I'll save you some time if you want my concession because I emphasised may and the statue refers to 'reasonably likely to' you can have it now, I will however point out that I'm thankful beyond belief that the word 'religion' was left out of the RDA75 because that would have been a clusterfuck especially when you consider how the Ben Affleck and regressive lefts of the world are trying to link a criticism of Islam as synonymous with an attack against brown people.

I will be generous with you concession and simply leave this part of the argument be. Also since I detest what certain parts of the left have become with the “regressive” left so we ‘re pretty much in agreement there. And also I didn’t want religion included which I explained above. So again an agreement there.

Provide me one real world example of a nation state that has no guarantee to free speech does have defamation and hate speech laws, but no other forms of censorship.

As noted earlier, even the US with its guarantee of free speech engages in censorship. So using the guarantee of free speech argument fails. Its simply not as strong as you assert. Thus there is no reason to assume censorship done outside of hate speech laws is because it fails to guarantee free speech, as opposed to because of other political motives.

Well they don't. We discuss this further below, but defamation laws in the United States where First Amendment rights need to be taken into consideration are different than the Australia. And the RDA75 is not inline with United States defamation laws, it is far more Orwellian that that. In the US, everything is free speech so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

As I said, its still a matter of degrees.

Can someone be successfully sued in the US for defamation. Yes or no? If yes, does that serve as a deterrence to free speech, yes or no? If yes, why do you persist in arguing that only hate speech laws lead to censorship elsewhere?

Yes, no and see no.

So the next question is why do you consider the threat of successful legal sanctions not limiting free speech? No one in their right mind would say, murder laws allow you to murder, because legal sanctions apply only after you have done the deed. By that same logic, why do you consider defamation laws allow you to say what you want when legal sanctions apply after you have spoken (assuming of course)

Brushing up on your mind reading skills there Mystic Meg?

Not really. I am just using a combination of my superpowers of sight and reading comprehension. I can see what you wrote, and even if by magic you didn’t mean to criticise Australia’s hate speech laws but just said it in a clumsy way to make it seem you were, you clearly are now. So your Mystic Meg jibe is just the last hooray of someone’s whose case is already lost.

Where? Oh you mean in your made up fantasy world, but not anything to do with America, Australia, Canada or Western Europe? Good one champ.

What the fuck are you smoking, because I want some of that stuff.

It went like this;
You : Randomly throws the name about in a conversation.
Me : I ignore it.
You : Bring it up again.
Me : I say what the fuck are you talking about.
You : OMG YOU N00b! Learn something, HIGH PROFILE, HIGH PROFILE.

Me : Points out if you want me to discuss a specific example you, should link it.

You : But I didn't refuse to link it, did I?

No, no you didn't. You also, having had the opportunity, still failed to link it! What a sad, sad little person you are.

That’s funny, because that’s not the way reality remembers it. You criticised hate speech laws, I provided an example to support my case. Yes I know, the gall of providing examples of back my case up. I am clearly a bad bad man.

Tell you what, after your whinefest and quoting the board’s rules to me which ended in your humiliation when it turned out…. you did the same thing, and given that now you posted links, I will in good faith do the same.
Ta da
BTW – I didn’t expect you to link to those cases if I didn’t ask you to link. So no hypocrisy on my part.

Why would I need to bring it up with the mods? What's that going to do? Why would I waste their time?

In other words, you aren't even confident I was trolling? Good to know.

Oh, I see so now we are talking about real world America freedom vs Australia freedom, but not earlier? So earlier was the hypothetical unicorn utopia which you created, but now we're doing the horse trading of freedom between 'Merica and 'Straya?

Oh I see. You can bring up real world examples of Australia banning this and that and talk about how less free we are, and I am not allowed to bring up a real world example of the US assassinating its own citizen as Thanas puts it for “speaking bad words" (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=151503) to argue “yeah right.”
Gotcha. Maybe we should just forget about giving Andrew Bolt his day in court, fining after he was found guilty and just get it over and done with and drone strike the guy.

So how is it you can say with a straight face we are "less free" than the US just because we have hate speech laws.

Because our government censors speech it deems unpalatable depriving us an opportunity to use our own judgement to decide whether it is right or wrong, where in America if something isn't an imminent call to violence I can always read the very same opinion if I want to. Am I wrong?

I see you also think we are less free by ignoring examples which are unpalatable.

And YET still no link provided in this reply. Amazing.

Well since you’ve provided links, I did the same above. But lets be realistic here. You didn’t think I made up the Andrew Bolt case did you? You’re just trying to score some cheap shots and trying to quote the board’s rules against me, just like when you falsely accused me of trolling but refused to report me even though apparently you believed I was.

You demonstrably refuse to consider evidence. Every real world example that I know of that fails to have an enshrined right to freedom speech also has censorship laws on issues that have nothing to do with defamation or hate speech. The key phrase here is that I know of. You have an opportunity here to actually educate me by providing such an example.

What has this got to do with the fact you falsely accused me to using a golden mean fallacy, when it was clear you don’t understand what that means? Look I get that you want to say your piece, but if you say it out of the context to that particular discussion, it just looks weird.

Until then all the evidence points to the only way to ensure no censorship is to have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

Ha ha ha. US. Censorship. See above link.

The same broad reasons when we consider why we should do this and that. Weighing the pros and cons.

But in any scenario where censorship is allowed pre-emptively, that has been taken away from me.

If people listen to this stuff and just laughed and said what a load of crap it wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately in the real world, demagoguery works. One doesn’t actually have to outright say, harm group x. One can just say group x is bad, and people will do it.

Let me make a hypothetical based on a real example. Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981 writes an article in a rag, but a rag with a wide circulation. This article claims to know the identities of a bunch of paedophiles in the local area. Funnily enough your name is on the list. It doesn’t say to go and bash Crown up, but some people try their vigilante justice.

This is not to illustrate the laws per se, but to illustrate that the power of demagoguery. You talk about how its silly banning such and such, because if you read it, you wouldn’t be affected. Yeah, you wouldn’t be affected. You will just laugh at it. But the point is, other people do become affected by bullshit. We have to balance out, at what point does my right of listening Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981’s bullshit outweigh your right to not get bashed up? Is it really that important that I can read Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981’s article and laugh at their stupidity?
Oh link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_t ... .282000.29

The paper began a controversial campaign to name and shame alleged paedophiles in July 2000, following the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne in West Sussex. During the trial of her killer Roy Whiting, it emerged that he had a previous conviction for abduction and sexual assault against a child. The paper's decision led to some instances of action being taken against those suspected of being child sex offenders,[37] which included several cases of mistaken identity, including one instance where a paediatrician had her house vandalised[38] and another where a man was confronted because he had a neck brace similar to one a paedophile was wearing when pictured.[39][40] The campaign was labelled "grossly irresponsible" journalism by the then Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler.[41] The paper also campaigned for the introduction of 'Sarah's Law' to allow public access to the sex offender registry.

Want another example. Ok lets talk Holocaust denial. One of the arguments against Israel's right to exist is that one of Israel's purpose is to provide refuge for Jews after the Holocaust. Since the Holocaust didn't really happen, and people believe it didn't really happen.....so Israel.... can you see where this is going? I am not going to get into the IvP shitstorm, merely illustrating again that these ideas do have consequences. This is propaganda used against Israel. If propaganda didn't work, people would have wised up ages ago and not use it.

Once again I am not advocating these hate speech law punishes people for speaking these ideas because it offends people, nor necessarily just because the consequences, but because sometimes the consequences (cons) outweigh any benefit of free speech (or the right to listen) in this particular area. Again its not always clear cut where to draw the line, but I would start with statements which are demonstrably false.

Same reason why everyone has a right to be offended but no right to not be offended. The later when taken up by the loonies leads to some fucking horrible scenarios (I take it I don't have to link any SJW or Right Wing Nutjobs YouTube clip for this do I?) and even when not taken up by the loonies, it's still an ass backward way to set up a society.

As mentioned earlier, I don’t advocate that because to protect some perceived right not to be offended. Since in previous threads and this one, I made it clear I oppose the SJWs why would you even need to link to a clip of them.

[amigocabal]

Now from Darthmouth.

http://www.dartreview.com/eyes-wide-ope ... e-protest/

If these allegations be true, this will not likely elicit support from the wider student population.

[Crown]

TRY PROOF READING SHIT BEFORE POSTING IT
I have to deal with your ever expanding verbosity I'd rather not deal with shitty formatting and literal repetitions of arguments

I see you will just repeat yourself ad infinitum (that was more Latin) until I die eh? Are we, or are we not talking about the specific topic of freedom of speech in Australia vs America? If the answer is yes, concede, if the answer is no, I'll fuck off.

It should be obvious the answer is yes when talking about Australia being less free than the US, and the answer is no when we’re talking about the benefits and disadvantages of a system where freedom to speak is limited in some instance vs your ideal system where more than can be said. Duh.

Right, so you've essentially been wasting my fucking time? Cheers.

Right, so despite all evidence to the contrary with the specific example of Australia (which you conveniently ignore) it's a false dichotomoy .. You're a waste of fucking time.

No, its fallacious because you haven’t actually explain why one is due to the other aside from the fact that both exists so they must be related.

We both agree that laws can have unintended consequences, we both agree that interpretation of laws can change with the prevailing sensibilities of the era so my argument is quite simple; by ensuring a fundamental right to free speech you minimise the "power creep" in government. Nothing can be more self evident than that.

WAIT. We're talking in hypothetical abstracts? HOLY SHIT. All this time I thought we were discussing real fucking world examples! Yeah, sure mate set up your unicorn fairy land, let me know when it's ready and I'll come join!

Oh no, you got me man. I better concede to your intellectual brilliance now. If only I mentioned about countries not banning GTA III and also have hate speech laws. Oh wait I did.
Me - Why is it not possible to set up a system as I described (how many other countries with hate speech laws banned GTA III) and is such an outcome superior to yours?
I am sure you can use CTRL F to find where I said that especially WHEN YOU QUOTED ME SAYING THAT LATER IN THIS VERY REPLY. Good grief, the comedy just writes itself.

Today class, we learn that comments made in parenthesis are the main argument to be addressed and not all the other text surrounding it. Astounding.

BTW – Germany for example has not banned GTA III (at least according to a quick search on which countries have banned which games).

Rockstar self-censored GTA III rather than risk it sitting on the 10 year long ban list. Self certification, make note of it we'll deal with it later.

But that was just me making fun of your poor reading comprehension. Because even if I didn’t, and since you want to bring up hypotheticals, why isn’t it possible for me to come up with a system which has hate speech laws and doesn’t ban GTA III? Even if you somehow thought it wasn’t possible, the fact real world examples exist proves your thinking wrong. I am however very curious as to why you think such an example cannot happen.

Provide. Such. Real. World. Examples.

And note; I'm not discussing the specificity of GTA III as in this one and only video game, I'm talking about censorship on things that have nothing to do with hate speech censorship.

Give me an example of such a system/law and we can discuss it.

An example of a country with hate speech laws which didn’t ban GTA III. Germany. Thanks for playing.

All GTA games except GTA V (and I think IV) where censored in Germany; since you "pride" yourself with your reading and comprehension skills, I'll quote my point where you think you've got me cornered; "The list of things censored or banned in Australia go beyond anything that can linked to RDA75, and the reason they can be banned is that there is no guarantee to a right to free speech. GTA III was banned in Australia. Not restricted to 18+, but banned until a censored version came out."

Here's a list of games outright banned in Germany, this means that a censored version didn't appear. Only three of them were due to Nazi references (under what we can for the purposes of this discussion can blanket call 'hate speech'). An interesting tidbit South Park: The Stick of Truth was censored for release in the EU, but even more especially for Germany because it had Nazi imagery, and as we all know South Park is nothing more than a Right Wing front.

But I will admit that’s not really that satisfying smacking you down that way,

taking advantage of your piss poor reading comprehension. I think what you want to demand (and correct me if I am wrong) is have a country which system is exactly how I would like. That would be limit somethings eg hate speech similar to how we do it, but not others ie allow certain games like GTA III.

I want you to find me a country that has what you describe as 'free speech except in cases X' (where X is hate speech), but no other form of censorship.

On a side note, I can’t see a particular reason to ban GTA III based on what little I know of it, but I am not going to say a game should never ever be banned because I want to look at the arguments for and against before making a decision.

We'll use the real example of South Park: The Stick of Truth, imagine you were a German, and there was no way to order a copy from outside of Germany you couldn't look at the arguments for and against yourself because the game had to be pre-censored in order to not be banned for 10 years. Which - and the irony will be glaring even for a jumped up self important cunt like you - is my point. By allowing censorship laws, you've given up you're right to make up your own mind.

Back to the earlier point, I don’t think we can find any country which does exactly like how we want in regards to any topic, or else no one ever would be clamouring for change. So I can’t think of a country which limits things in exactly how I want. However the major point of contention still stands, just because a country limits one thing, it doesn’t follow it does another. The fact that not all countries with hate speech laws ban GTA III demonstrates this.

Sure, but since you're wrong in GTAIII (as it practiced self censorship), why don't we flip the scenario and talk about the South Park game? Self censored due to Nazi imagery, or it would have been placed on a 10 year ban list in Germany. This would have been done under Germany's equivalent RDA75 statues. What harm was the uncensored South Park game causing? I await your analysis.

But if you're just talking in the abstract 'how come' scenario then it is my belief that in a free society; while I concede that certain behaviours must be curtailed for for the benefit of said society (violence in all its manifestation for example - with the exception of self defence), thought and expression should be the only things that are never regulated. You can think and say what you will. Which is in line with the SCOTUS definition of Free Speech; everything is acceptable that doesn't promote imminent violence.

Ok, lets talk in the abstract then.
I think laws are a reflection of the values of the society that created them. Thus laws try their best to navigate the sometimes competing values of society. Using a neutral example, environmental laws must navigate the competing values between environmental concerns and the concerns of industry. The idea is that the final law, tries to maximise utility for society and because of this is “fair.”

In pluralistic societies one very important concept is that of egalitarianism. Assuming you aren’t going to argue egalitarianism is undesirable, then race hate laws are a reflection of this value in society. However we also have values of allowing people to say what they want. At the end of the day, the law must compromise and find the best solution between these competing values. Defamation laws tries to balance the right to free speech with the protection of an individual’s reputation. Hate speech laws tries to balance these as well as egalitarianism.

Having hate speech isn’t something I think of lightly, and I suspect the societies that introduced them did not either. As a general rule, people consider the pros and cons of a policy, and hate speech laws are no exception.

Broadly in agreement.

If we are going to talk about the pros and cons of such a law, I really can’t see the benefit of racially vilifying someone. This is not the same as criticising an idea like religion. A person can change their religion or reform it. A person cannot change their race. Religious aren’t automatically good or bad, it depends on what the ideas say. A person is not good or bad because of their race. They’re good or bad because of their ideals and actions. Criticising an idea can point out weaknesses in said ideas, which is beneficial to society. Vilifying a person on race gives exactly what benefit to society? Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t some negatives to race hate laws, and certainly one could argue for unintended consequences.

I don't believe my point is that there is a 'benefit' in racially vilifying someone, but lets continue.

So lets through the negatives you’ve mentioned.
1. Limits the power of the government of its citizens. This is merely asserted as good without any justification why. You’ve pretty much stated the government should limit things like violence and so presumably you see that as good. So government power over its citizens in and of itself its not necessarily bad. It depends on what its use for, hence… and this is the kicker, you cannot appeal to limiting government power over its citizens in and of itself as a justification. Which you did on the second page, 22nd post before you start whining.

The argument that limiting the power of a government over its own citizenry is ipso facto self evidently good. Any and every single government ever created in our entire history has been used as a tool by the few to oppress and control the many. In many cases this can be the somewhat banal wealth stealing in our 'modern' and 'advanced' democracies that promote 'egalitarianism', to the extreme dystopian misanthrope totalitarian governments of feudal societies of past or the present. Seeing governments fall into corruption (and that's presuming they weren't corrupt to begin with) is as certain as predicting entropy. Why would I willingly give up my ability to think and reason to said entity (I guess the obvious retort would be some people aren't to be trusted with their own thoughts)?

2. Vague nebulous things about leading to censorship along with awesome spiel about the US system protects this shit.

Firstly, defamation laws also work in similar manner. You have repeatedly asserted it doesn’t restrict free speech but I will touch on that later. However you haven’t really countered the fact that hate speech laws do similar things. So we have two possibilities – a) defamation restricts free speech (which you deny), so why whine about hate speech laws for doing the same and covers even less or b) defamation doesn’t restrict free speech, so why should hate speech laws when they work the same way.

Because in the example of the South Park game; unintended consequences. There is a law in Germany that we are for the purposes of this debate equating to RDA75 (we both understand it's not really, its the far more specific no Fascist law but hey lets press on), it's applied to video game that neither glorifies, condones, promotes or endorses Nazism.

Secondly at the risk of repeating myself, you have pointed out A and B exist, therefore one causes the other. I don’t know how to drill that into you why correlation unequal to causation. So I will try a different track.

Under your hypothesis, snigger, the US shouldn’t experience these things or the government wouldn’t be encouraged to try this shit, because you know, free speech is guaranteed. Unfortunately it does do these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshi ... ted_States
From wikileaks to porn, it fucking does engage in censorship. Moreover its press freeom, a requirement to counter act censorship, ranks lower than countries with hate speech laws according to Reporters without borders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Austria is ranked 12, Germany 14, Australia 28. The US ranked 46.
I am not going to argue whether the US was right or wrong in its censorship, only that your theory generates certain predictions, which are simply not borne out by reality. Which suggests that your “guarantee of free speech,” isn’t as powerful as you think it is, and the urge to censor is a human response. In which case I would argue, then this “guarantee of free speech” leading to protection against censorship, can’t be used as an argument against hate speech laws.

Oh pumpkin, but as you have pointed and (and to which I've not disagreed) it's a matter of 'degrees', correct? So with my hypothesis (*snigger*) all I have to show that the US suffers less of the censorship syndrome that plagues Australia. Shall we engage or would you like to concede?

And also, the link with from Reporters without Borders, did you bother to read what it was telling you? Did you understand it? It lists the reasons why it ranks the US so low. One of them is for the police harassment during Ferguson and since my point isn't a guaranteed right to free speech doesn't mean the government can't still be cunts to you it hardly hurts me.

And the other is because US reporters will actively print shit that Australian reporters wouldn't because of their First Amendment but are in trouble because they don't have a guarantee to keep their sources confidential. You get that right? You understand what you link doesn't take into consideration acts of self censorship by the editors and journalists in Australia.

Which brings me to the talk the talk of how we would get censorship for anything that is considered offensive, and this gets tedious. I am not advocating hate speech laws because some speech is offensive to someone (although it no doubt is), I am arguing for it because there is no benefit to letting these people preach hate and it runs counter to the values of egalitarianism.

I don't disagree with that, my point is giving any government any leeway in censorship is in effect crossing the Rubicon; you effectively give up your right not only to free speech, but free thought. You would either have to the make law so specific to be useless, or so broad that in future generations you'll have unintended consequences which defeated your initial aims.

The point is, you're ignoring the right to listen (we talk about this again later).

Oh for fuck’s sake. It was clear I was referring to one thing (why denying one’s ability to x, doesn’t follow that it will the ability to say y(, you disputed it and then say I am wrong because of a totally different thing ie the right to listen. Are you so full of yourself you can’t see why people might find you somewhat going off track at best, dishonest at worse?

But you cannot decouple the right to free speech from the right to listen. Stamping your feet on the ground and pouting isn't going to work. And you're entire ban X so doesn't lead to ban Y is being talked ad nauseam (wow more Latin) through out this back and forth. YOU keep asking why someone has a 'right to racially vilify', I refuse to take the bait. I'm saying freedom of speech isn't about X person having a "right" to racially vilify Y group, it's also about all of us having a right to listen to all opinions and make our own judgements.

Lets discuss this in a real world example; Trumps infamous all Mexican's are rapists and drug mules speech. You would prefer a system where it would be impossible for Donald Trump to say this? WHY? This is the single greatest thing I've heard in my life time. I no longer have to wonder if Donald Trump and his supporters are racist navel gazing morons, I know it as a fact. But in your scenario, Donald Trump would use the usual Republican racist code speech to keep the ambiguity. This speech is the greatest public service announcement to the mindless middle in America, and the conservative Latinos why they should never vote Republican.

I am just going to start by pointing out that this doesn’t actually touch on my point that your argument of “who are you to decide who gets to listen to this and that,” also applies to defamation laws which cover more people than hate speech laws, and hence its strange you object to the latter.

I would also point out, that its not so much that Trump wouldn’t be able to say it, but he could be sued for saying it. Thus we not only know he is a racist, he also faces legal sanctions. So both your concerns and mine are taken care of. Win win. And before you say, ah well he will use racist code speak, Trump may be a whiz on financial stuff (depending on who you ask) but in this example he would be too fucking stupid to keep his trap shut.
I will accept that under my “rule”, people might interpret that as saying Trump can’t say such and such, the same way people say drink driving laws say you can’t drink and drive, even though legal sanctions apply only after you have done the deed.

But that's your assumption Trump wouldn't practice self censorship because he's lack of any kind of impulse control (and frankly I agree with you), but that's a cop out. The far more interesting scenario is one where Trump self censors his real opinions of Mexicans and is still running for President. So looking at it again; what is more harmful; a world where we know Trump's attitude to Mexicans, or one where it's in the closet?

Provide me one real world example of a nation state that has no guarantee to free speech does have defamation and hate speech laws, but no other forms of censorship.

As noted earlier, even the US with its guarantee of free speech engages in censorship. So using the guarantee of free speech argument fails. Its simply not as strong as you assert. Thus there is no reason to assume censorship done outside of hate speech laws is because it fails to guarantee free speech, as opposed to because of other political motives.

Even if it's 'not as strong as I assert', is it, or is it not 'stronger' than your alternative?

Well they don't. We discuss this further below, but defamation laws in the United States where First Amendment rights need to be taken into consideration are different than the Australia. And the RDA75 is not inline with United States defamation laws, it is far more Orwellian that that. In the US, everything is free speech so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

As I said, its still a matter of degrees.

But you admit, there is a grade right? One is more 'free' than the other?

Yes, no and see no.

So the next question is why do you consider the threat of successful legal sanctions not limiting free speech? No one in their right mind would say, murder laws allow you to murder, because legal sanctions apply only after you have done the deed. By that same logic, why do you consider defamation laws allow you to say what you want when legal sanctions apply after you have spoken (assuming of course)

You need the difference between an irrevocable act of violence and speech explained to you? You understand that one cannot 'undo' a murder, but one can evolve a thought?

Brushing up on your mind reading skills there Mystic Meg?

Not really. I am just using a combination of my superpowers of sight and reading comprehension. I can see what you wrote, and even if by magic you didn’t mean to criticise Australia’s hate speech laws but just said it in a clumsy way to make it seem you were, you clearly are now. So your Mystic Meg jibe is just the last hooray of someone’s whose case is already lost.

I'm not going to lie, I'm going to be plagiarising the shit out of the highlighted part.

Where? Oh you mean in your made up fantasy world, but not anything to do with America, Australia, Canada or Western Europe? Good one champ.

What the fuck are you smoking, because I want some of that stuff.

So where?

Tell you what, after your whinefest and quoting the board’s rules to me which ended in your humiliation when it turned out…. you did the same thing, and given that now you posted links, I will in good faith do the same.
Ta da
BTW – I didn’t expect you to link to those cases if I didn’t ask you to link. So no hypocrisy on my part.

Clinical psychologists do not have any type of scale to measure your levels of delusions. The moment you asked me for a link, I provided it, the one time I asked you for one you threw a hissy fit. But as you are so fond to do, why should I bother, the exchange is preserved above for all to see.

Why would I need to bring it up with the mods? What's that going to do? Why would I waste their time?

In other words, you aren't even confident I was trolling? Good to know.

There's that mind reading again.

Oh, I see so now we are talking about real world America freedom vs Australia freedom, but not earlier? So earlier was the hypothetical unicorn utopia which you created, but now we're doing the horse trading of freedom between 'Merica and 'Straya?

Oh I see. You can bring up real world examples of Australia banning this and that and talk about how less free we are, and I am not allowed to bring up a real world example of the US assassinating its own citizen as Thanas puts it for “speaking bad words" (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=151503) to argue “yeah right.”
Gotcha. Maybe we should just forget about giving Andrew Bolt his day in court, fining after he was found guilty and just get it over and done with and drone strike the guy.

Right so Australia's actions with David Hicks should or shouldn't count because we allowed America to imprison him for us, or our actions with the Bali 9, where we served up (admittedly) scumbags to Indonesia where their death warrants were signed when we could have caught them in Australia instead?

The reason why I didn't respond to them is because (in what is now a trend for you) you throw things at me with no context (i.e. background/links) and I'm meant to do all the fucking cold sensing to figure out what you're referring to? Fuck off cunt.

Because our government censors speech it deems unpalatable depriving us an opportunity to use our own judgement to decide whether it is right or wrong, where in America if something isn't an imminent call to violence I can always read the very same opinion if I want to. Am I wrong?

I see you also think we are less free by ignoring examples which are unpalatable.

Which examples did I ignore?

And YET still no link provided in this reply. Amazing.

Well since you’ve provided links, I did the same above. But lets be realistic here. You didn’t think I made up the Andrew Bolt case did you? You’re just trying to score some cheap shots and trying to quote the board’s rules against me, just like when you falsely accused me of trolling but refused to report me even though apparently you believed I was.

Ah, delusional and with a prosecution complex all rolled into one. How very efficient of you. I never accused you of making anything up. I asked you what the fuck you were talking about and you spat your dummy, stomped your little feet and said HIGH PROFILE, HIGH PROFILE as if that exempted you from providing context to someone who resides in another country than yours. You do know I don't live in Australia, right?

You demonstrably refuse to consider evidence. Every real world example that I know of that fails to have an enshrined right to freedom speech also has censorship laws on issues that have nothing to do with defamation or hate speech. The key phrase here is that I know of. You have an opportunity here to actually educate me by providing such an example.

What has this got to do with the fact you falsely accused me to using a golden mean fallacy, when it was clear you don’t understand what that means? Look I get that you want to say your piece, but if you say it out of the context to that particular discussion, it just looks weird.

You employed the classic golden mean by characterising 'both sides as extreme and the truth somewhere in the middle', here are your exact, un-edited words; "Although in the broader complex, the point is that both sides take extreme positions, whereas I feel in this case the correct position is somewhere between those positions. You can disagree with that, but how the hell do you misinterpret that?"

So define 'broader complex' to me then.

Until then all the evidence points to the only way to ensure no censorship is to have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

Ha ha ha. US. Censorship. See above link.

As you say, see above.

But in any scenario where censorship is allowed pre-emptively, that has been taken away from me.

If people listen to this stuff and just laughed and said what a load of crap it wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately in the real world, demagoguery works. One doesn’t actually have to outright say, harm group x. One can just say group x is bad, and people will do it.

Let me make a hypothetical based on a real example. Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981 writes an article in a rag, but a rag with a wide circulation. This article claims to know the identities of a bunch of paedophiles in the local area. Funnily enough your name is on the list. It doesn’t say to go and bash Crown up, but some people try their vigilante justice.

This is not to illustrate the laws per se, but to illustrate that the power of demagoguery. You talk about how its silly banning such and such, because if you read it, you wouldn’t be affected. Yeah, you wouldn’t be affected. You will just laugh at it. But the point is, other people do become affected by bullshit. We have to balance out, at what point does my right of listening Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981’s bullshit outweigh your right to not get bashed up? Is it really that important that I can read Sleazy Tabloid Journalist 1981’s article and laugh at their stupidity?
Oh link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_t ... .282000.29

The paper began a controversial campaign to name and shame alleged paedophiles in July 2000, following the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne in West Sussex. During the trial of her killer Roy Whiting, it emerged that he had a previous conviction for abduction and sexual assault against a child. The paper's decision led to some instances of action being taken against those suspected of being child sex offenders,[37] which included several cases of mistaken identity, including one instance where a paediatrician had her house vandalised[38] and another where a man was confronted because he had a neck brace similar to one a paedophile was wearing when pictured.[39][40] The campaign was labelled "grossly irresponsible" journalism by the then Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler.[41] The paper also campaigned for the introduction of 'Sarah's Law' to allow public access to the sex offender registry.

If I was bashed up, I would have a criminal case against my attacker. If they say, and I can prove that their actions were a result due to reckless journalist 1981 I might have a case against him too, since as I've noted the SCOTUS does define free speech up until the point of immanent violence. By the way, you could have used the O'Reilly example of how he kept talking about an abortion doctor as a baby killer until some sicko actually killed him.

<snip>.

IvP and hence Israel's right to existence are under moratorium on this board. Not touching that with a 10 foot poll.

Once again I am not advocating these hate speech law punishes people for speaking these ideas because it offends people, nor necessarily just because the consequences, but because sometimes the consequences (cons) outweigh any benefit of free speech (or the right to listen) in this particular area. Again its not always clear cut where to draw the line, but I would start with statements which are demonstrably false.

This is the part that freaks me out; what sounds like a most reasonable point, i.e. "ban statements which are demonstrably false", leads me to think creating a Ministry of Truth, and fuck that.

[Wild Zontargs]

An interesting theory on contributing factors to the racial unrest at universities. TL;DR: huge affirmative action bonuses encourage perfectly good students to go to schools where their classmates will significantly out-achieve them, leaving the AA students at the back of the pack. The AA students look around, see that the non-AA students are out-achieving them, and conclude that it's due to racism.

[Formatting and reference links in the original not reproduced here]

A LITTLE-UNDERSTOOD ENGINE OF CAMPUS UNREST: RACIAL ADMISSIONS PREFERENCES
An underlying reason for today’s “hostile learning environment” on campus.

By Stuart Taylor, Jr. – 11.23.15

Why are some of the most privileged students in the nation plunging into a racial grievance culture and upending their campuses as though oppressed by Halloween costumes they don’t approve, imagined racial slights, portraits of Woodrow Wilson, a tiny handful of real racial epithets, and the like?

The reasons are of course multifaceted. But one deserves far more attention than it has gotten: Many or most of the African-American student protesters really are victims — but not of old-fashioned racism.

Most are, rather, victims of the very large admissions preferences that set up racial-minority students for academic struggle at the selective universities that have cynically misled them into thinking they are well qualified to compete with classmates who are, in fact, far stronger academically.

The reality is that most good black and Hispanic students, who would be academically competitive at many selective schools, are not competitive at the more selective schools that they attend.

That’s why it takes very large racial preferences to get them admitted. An inevitable result is that many black and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic students cannot keep up with better-prepared classmates and rank low in their classes no matter how hard they work.

Studies show that this academic “mismatch effect” forces them to drop science and other challenging courses; to move into soft, easily graded, courses disproportionately populated by other preferentially admitted students; and to abandon career hopes such as engineering and pre-med. Many lose intellectual self-confidence and become unhappy even if they avoid flunking out.

This depresses black performance at virtually all selective schools because of what experts call the cascade effect. Here’s how it works, as Richard Sander and I demonstrated in a 2012 book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It:

Only 1 to 2 percent of black college applicants emerge from high school well-qualified academically for (say) the top Ivy League colleges. Therefore, those schools can meet their racial admissions targets only by using large preferences. They bring in black students who are well qualified for moderately elite schools like (say) the University of North Carolina, but not for the Ivies that recruit them. This leaves schools like UNC able to meet their own racial targets only by giving large preferences to black students who are well qualified for less selective schools like (say) the University of Missouri but not for UNC. And so on down the selectivity scale.

As a result, experts agree, most black students at even moderately selective schools — with high school preparation and test scores far below those of their classmates — rank well below the middle of their college and grad school classes, with between 25% and 50% ranking in the bottom tenth. That’s a very bad place to be at any school.

This, in turn, increases these students’ isolation and self-segregation from the higher-achieving Asians and whites who flourish in more challenging courses. At least one careful study shows that students are more likely to become friends with peers who are similar in academic accomplishment.

Put yourself in the position of manyHispanic and especially black students (recipients of by far the largest racial preferences) at selective schools, who may work heroically during the first semester only to be lost in many classroom discussions and dismayed by their grades.

As they start to see the gulf between their own performance and that of most of their fellow students, dismay can become despair. They soon realize that no matter how hard they work, they will struggle academically.

It is critical to understand that these are not bad students. They did well in high school and could excel at somewhat less selective universities where they would arrive roughly as well prepared as their classmates.

But due to racial preferences, they find themselves for the first time in their lives competing against classmates who have a huge head start in terms of previous education, academic ability, or both.

Researchers have shown that racial preference recipients develop negative perceptions of their own academic competence, which in turn harms their performance and even their mental health, through “stereotype threat” and other problems. They may come to see themselves as failures in the eyes of their families, their friends, and themselves.

Such mismatched minority students are understandably baffled and often bitter about why this is happening to them. With most other minority students having similar problems, their personal academic struggles take on a collective, racial cast.

Consider the case of a student whom I will call Joe, as told in Mismatch. He breezed through high school in Syracuse, New York, in the top 20 percent of his class. He had been class president, a successful athlete, and sang in gospel choir. He was easily admitted to Colgate, a moderately elite liberal arts college in rural New York; no one pointed out to Joe that his SAT scores were far below the class median.

Joe immediately found himself over his head academically, facing far more rigorous coursework than ever before. “Nobody told me what would be expected of me beforehand,” Joe later recalled. “I really didn’t know what I was getting into. And it all made me feel as if I wasn’t smart enough.”

But just as surprising and upsetting was the social environment in which Joe found himself. “I was immediately stereotyped and put into a box because I was African American,” he recalled. “And that made it harder to perform. People often made little derogatory comments.…There was a general feeling that all blacks on campus were there either because they were athletes or they came through a minority recruitment program.… That was just assumed right away.”

It was also, unfortunately, quite true. That’s why racial preferences are an extremely powerful generator of racial stereotypes about intellectual abilities. Joe was forced by bad grades to drop out after his freshman year, though he eventually returned to Colgate and obtained his bachelor’s degree.

Not many mismatched students complain — even if they figure out — that the root of their problems is that they are not well-qualified to compete with their classmates. The universities, the media, and others do their best to conceal and deny this connection. And it is human nature to seek less humiliating, more sinister explanations.

The grievance-prone college culture offers ready targets for these frustrated students to blame for their plight: wildly exaggerated and sometimes fabricated instances of racism, trivial perceived “microaggressions,” and the very real racial isolation that is largely due to racially preferential admissions — all leading to a supposedly hostile learning environment.

Another common reaction is to withdraw into racial enclaves within the campus. Many universities encourage this by creating black dormitories and even by assigning entering students to them.

Racial, intellectual, economic, social, religious, and political diversity can greatly enrich the educational experience — but not when engineered through large preferences that do more harm than good to their supposed beneficiaries, not to mention to the stronger students who are passed over to make room for racial-preference recipients.

All this goes a long way toward explaining the over-the-top demands now roiling our campuses for still more racial admissions preferences; more preferentially hired, underqualified professors; more grievance-focused courses and university bureaucrats; more university-sponsored racial enclaves; and more apologies for “white privilege.”

The university leaders who cravenly coddle the racial grievance lobby, such as Yale President Peter Salovey and Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber, are only aggravating academic mismatch, racial isolation, and unhappiness among minority students — and degrading their own universities.

Pessimistic observers of such meltdowns conclude that our most prestigious universities are committing suicide. Where are the leaders who will set things straight?