marcelrivasf
249010
5986
754
#facts
Aug 27, 2017 1:14 PM
marcelrivasf
249010
5986
754
#facts
KrumpingCrumpet
But...Red never said this.
skwh
it isn't about disagreement, it's about theoretical laws limiting X speech eventually silencing the same ppl who championed those laws.
fordmf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
spiffynidd
This. This is why I support freedom of speech (to a point-I'm not about advocating violence).
SoberAndBored
Free speech means you're going to hear people say things you disagree with. It doesn't mean you have to listen, it doesn't mean you have to
SoberAndBored
change your opinion. But it's the reason why we fight fascism and communism, and it's important that you know that, and it's probably a good
SoberAndBored
idea to consider what they're saying, even if it's just so you know what a shower of cunts they are.
wheresmymoneydenny
Josefbugman1543
It also doesn't mean your wrong though.
jfd8u438fdsfkds
What about my wrong?
Josefbugman1543
Shit it, dyslexia acting up. Sorry "*you are
beasttubbs
Agreed, but this was never said in the show. This is when Red sold the car to "A guy named 'Peter." Peter Cottontail. ♪Hoppin down the...♪"
Rosie2003
"Look at me, I'm Whipped-Cream-Head!"
BirbsAreImportant
What about when that speech is advocating violence towards certain races and ethnicities?
12rt2345g342563
Specific threats of violence are illegal. General suggestions of violence are protected.
WiqidBritt
This administration is demanding ISPs identify people that visit anti-trump websites...
omh1
Didn't the US already pass a law that ISPs could sell customer's internet history? or do what ever they wanted with it?
WiqidBritt
IIRC there was still a level of anonymity involved with that. trump wants names.
omh1
I assumed based on the "buy the senator's internet history" things that it was identifiable, but I will be the first to admit I have no idea
ArcaneConjecture
And if a Sheriff who violates OTHERS' civil rights gets pardoned, one who violates YOUR rights can also be pardoned. Amirite?
danielsan1977
But who is Red "talking" to?
sprbwlshuffler
The dumbasses.
MothMonsterMan
The circle
BlueManticore
Anyone who wants the government to decide what people can and can not say
magnumjenkins
Sir Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance is an interesting thing to think about nowadays.
malexmatt
I wish people would read other things Popper had to say, instead of just what's convenient for their use of his name
CowtownTwit
Isn't this when they are in their circle smoking up? The world needs more Red.
Ssssssssssss
*Pass hate speech laws* *someone in your group says something that can remotely be construed as hateful* *government denies permits*
GeorgeHWBushsGhost
OP osn't talking about freedom of consequence, it's very obvious that it isn't a law. He's talking about expanding hate speech laws.
biolologist
Really? Because I took it to be referring to laws like this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bills-protest-criminal-20170201-story.html
GeorgeHWBushsGhost
That's not freedom of speech. That's dealing with impeding traffic.
snarflex
Laws like that aren't wrong on their face; who wants to feel in danger in their car but feel like they can't do anything about it?
Corsair212
If you're standing in a road with a speed limit above 35MPH to protest something you're an idiot, and asshole.
biolologist
If you hit someone with your car, you're an asshole.
Corsair212
There were protestors on the interstate in MN at night...same as standing on the train tracks in my opinion.
biolologist
it's not and not what is being targeted by the laws in question as there are already protections for highway motorists in that situation
snarflex
If someone's dangerously impeding traffic, no matter the cause, they don't have a "right to feel safe" and make other people not feel safe.
biolologist
Just because someone is protesting doesn't give you a right to hit them with your car.
GeorgeHWBushsGhost
Maybe when they protest they should do it legally. This kind of stuff is prevented when you follow municipal laws on protesting.
biolologist
Not the way some of the laws in question are written. There are a couple that don't make any distinction about where the protestor is.
Arcian
Repeat after me: The 1st amendment is protection from government censorship, not from social censorship.
DukeDark
Repeat after Arcian "I support social authoritarianism and using the government to silence my enemies."
Arcian
Which part of "The 1st amendment is protection from government censorship" didn't you understand?
William21912
He said hip is a funny word
TargaryenLoyalist
Which is why they create exceptions, like how Muslims don't deserve religious freedom because Islam somehow doesn't count as a religion.
TargaryenLoyalist
If you think I'm exaggerating, look up Bryan Fischer's statements on the subject.
12rt2345g342563
Freedom is for white Christians only.
TargaryenLoyalist
Poe's Law is in effect here.
TargaryenLoyalist
The following is an exact quote from Fischer: "By the word religion in the First Amendment, the founders meant Christianity." 1
TargaryenLoyalist
"They weren’t providing any cover or shelter for the free exercise of Islam or even Judaism or even atheism" 2
TargaryenLoyalist
"They weren’t prohibiting that. They were just saying, that is not what we are talking about here." 3
TargaryenLoyalist
So yeah, they literally believe that the 1st Amendment covers only them, and they're allowing other faiths to exist just to be nice. 4/4
glaug
What laws? What are you talking about?
illegalacorn
out his ass
WorthEveryPenny
There aren't any. Republicans can't tell the difference between publicly unacceptable and shameful, vs actually illegal.
firehawkcultist
well a judge did just approve letting the government investigate over a million people who went on a anti-Trump website, totally not fascist
McDuffkins
I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused.
PiggyWobbles
The google laws that i heard about from alex jones! The jews are taking away the internet
TylerTheAnarchist
As a Jew we need more internet... for science.
myfirstthrowaway
Oh, thaaaat law. Why didn't you say so in the first place.
therealsalvi
germany has some laws like this
BlueManticore
There are a lot of people who want to make some speech illegal in the US. It's also a problem in the EU. Recently in Germany a liberal (1/2)
12rt2345g342563
"a lot of people want to" aka no laws exist or are in the process of being created and we are arguing a strawman.
BlueManticore
Well yea I guess... in the United States anyways
BlueManticore
Newspaper was targeted by police, writers arrested, for being critical of them and how they operate. (2/2)
ThatWasntme
what newspaper are you talking about?
biolologist
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bills-protest-criminal-20170201-story.html
GrootGear
Bad title, should be "Not prosecuted if you hit a protester when they are blocking roads or highways"
somekindafuckingidiot
do you think that makes it better? there is not much difference between the intent to run over someone on the sidewalk or road.
GrootGear
When you walk out into a fast moving street for protest and get hit it is your fault.
somekindafuckingidiot
yes but when you run someone over willingly because you dont want your fast food to get cold it is also your fault. the law would allow that
zanzaboonda
Wow
Josefbugman1543
Not that, because the protestors aren't white, nobody gives a fuck.
SaltyInternetPirate
I think they proposed it before the first time ISIS used that tactic. They might have given them the idea by doing so. It was news back then
zanzaboonda
That's a frightening thought. But sounds plausible. Given the quote and that context, I *kind of* get their point. But not anymore.
Andalite
You could've waited longer than a day to repost it from me, you know
rhinofire
Upvoted
MetalPsychologist
It's a screen grab from an old TV show, not some avante garde OC creation.
ShadyC
I... always... upvote... ... ... RS??? Where IS RepostStatistics, anyway?
UncleBuckFutter
We summon you @RepostStatistics
OneShot510
mikeyman512
His has a better title:P
thetonestarr
It really does. Original title is painful.
Noxbane
Andalites are known to hate the Sharing.
BenderDickCumberSnatch
Damnnnnnnn spicy.
SolidSnayke
Are you the creator of "that 70's show"? If not, then stfu
stormegedendarklordofall
Went and upvoted. I downvoted this repost
Knillis
Ackchyoually, his title was better. (Doesnt change the fact OP is a bundle of sticks)
AlrightKeepYourSecrets
Lol i love how comments pointing out reposts can either get opvoted to hell, or downvoted like crazy.
Whitejack
BouncingFerret
Who cares? It's not your OC.
SweetPinkXTC
+1 on yours
BigfootsSecretLover
Oh fuck are you ok bro? How much money are you losing cos of this?
RubberChickenGoD
swenglishperson
and this is your content how exactly?
Tanwolf
A day? That's a long time on here. I've seen reposts a minute afterwards. Sometimes they're on the same page. Sucks even more with the first
Tanwolf
one goes negative and the 2nd on ends up on FP.
goldensky
+1 for username.
Vyrro
The andalite chronicles was a decent book.
xbxoxy
Dumbass!! Lol jk
crazedandinfused
Well her got more points so I guess he did it better.
chunkblaster
Upvoted you to 1337, just thaught you should know *pats self on back*
UrKungFuNoGood
stfu reposter
emoneyluvsJesus
He got way more points. Or she
ThatAintRightItsAllLeft
That shit ain't even right :D
Tinkrr
I'm sure you stole it from someone else yourself.
RideTheStimutacs
Yeah, it was stolen from Kurtwood goddamn Smith.
Bot17629A98001
Check. Mate.
KZDM
As far as I'm concerned unless it's your original content you have no right to claim it as 'your post' when other people also repost it
Tinkrr
"But I stole it first!"
reesareesa
Went to your profile and upvote yours
ShlongaDonga
same
Nellas54
Same.
Vvd7734
In order to confuse things I'm down voting you post and upvoting the repost
MnightShariaLaw
And why would you help the reposter?
Vvd7734
There is literally no reason. I simply wanted to do the wrong thing. I'm upvoting your comments for balance.
MnightShariaLaw
Chaotic Evil.
Vvd7734
shovethis
The guy claiming OP isn't the real OP anyway
Isaislol
Sounds like an oversimplification of the issue.
GreenYawgmoth
oversimplification? on imgur? INCONCEIVABLE!
BurntAndBranded
How so? Your speech should be protected plain and simple. Wanting to restrict it sets a bad precedent that can have your speech restricted.
flakeOfDoom
Depends on how it's done. As long as the standard of proper legal, ethical argumentation is there, you can do X without allowing Y.
SomeInfamousGuy
There is no evidence that it would become a slippery slope. Germany restricts hate speech and has done since WW2 and they're not a tyranny
DukeDark
Yeah, they only constantly jail people for politically unpalatable things. You can go to jail for years for holding your arm at wrong angle
SomeInfamousGuy
Yeah, but the point is that the law is well defined and hasn't escalated from that point. And honestly, a Nazi salute IS a call to violence.
BlasphemousPigeon
You must be retarded. Free speech protects from the government punishing you, it doesn't stop society from handing out punishment.
MouseDenton
Hence the use of the word "laws" above...
Rifneno
Reminds me of this gem:
thefuckwouldiwantacaravanthatsgotnofuckinwheels
I like this
IReallyNeedAHobby
OP did specify "laws used to silence", you cerebrally inept wedgie stain.
BlasphemousPigeon
There aren't any, you corrosive ass termite. You must be just as retarded.
motorwaffle
I don't recognize your fucking authority to hand out punishment.
BlasphemousPigeon
That's cool, but if you're my employee and I find out you're a neonazi, guess what? You're fucking fired. Get to shit and get out.
TheZompocalypse
No it's only vigilante justice at that point, aka taking the law into your own hands.
igivetheinternets
Calling people "retarded" is hate speech. Your comment will now be deletedby imgur and the secret police will be taking you to a "detention"
igivetheinternets
Facility where you will be educated in correct think. No room for hate!
malexmatt
The 1st amendment stops the government. Free speech is a principle
therealmynamehere
Punishment is you losing your job or something like that, punishment does not include being beat up by someone who does not want to hear you
BlueManticore
Some people WANT the government to censor speech... that's why he said LAWS
jfd8u438fdsfkds
How disgusting that people are upvoting this call to violence. Free speech is a concept, not a law.
Potatopeelerkind
Are we talking about punishment as in people yelling or physical violence? One of those is fine, the other is and should be illegal.
roads88mph
How about yelling about doing physical violence?
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Physical violence is already illegal except for self-defense though. We all know that. No one's arguing otherwise.
biolologist
You know that a number of red-states are trying to pass laws that would make it legal to murder protestors with your car, right?
zim804
Just the ones stupid enough to step in front of a 3k lbs death machine. Survival of the fittest.
biolologist
There are already laws in place that do that. These laws are specifically crafted to target protestors.
rokkerboyy
Lying will not help your cause.
biolologist
Works for Trump doesn't it?
rokkerboyy
Have you seen his approval rating?
biolologist
He's still in office ain't he?
d0o0o0d
If the protesters are illegally blocking roadways. Don't leave that part out, it's kinda important.
rokkerboyy
No it just makes them not liable for being sued if a protester jumps in front of their car and the driver hits them despite trying to avoid.
biolologist
There are already laws in place that do that. These laws are specifically crafted to target protestors.
rokkerboyy
Horseshit.
biolologist
What state are you in? I'll cite the exact statute.
AncientSeraph
No, they don't. Half truths aren't truths, and what you're saying is bullshit.
biolologist
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bills-protest-criminal-20170201-story.html
AncientSeraph
As I said, your statement is wrong. If that law passed and you got a protester with your car, you'll be charged. Unless very specific
biolologist
Dude, it's the same wording as the affirmative self-defense (aka "stand your ground") laws that let people get away with murder...
AncientSeraph
circumstances occur. It's like saying murder is legal in Florida, just for having the Stand Your Ground thingy. Half-truths aren't truths.
Theodrian
You mean like murder, or vehicular manslaughter, which are laws?
biolologist
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bills-protest-criminal-20170201-story.html
ITalkAboutGoats
Not make it ILLEGAL, make it LEGAL
whaleblood
Yeah yeah I get the free speech thing but can we just agree nazis are not cool+when nazis are scaring Americans in America we should stop it
snarflex
Why stop at Nazis? Everyone should put their own list together of who shouldn't be allowed to speak. Do this democratically.
sprbwlshuffler
We can help stop them by making fun of them and getting them fired from their jobs. We shouldn't have to use our fists to defeat these guys.
biolologist
except that they (right-wing extremists) are trying to pass laws in state legislatures to legalize vehicular manslaughter against protestors
sprbwlshuffler
That legislation was on the table long before the horrific death in Charlottesville.
biolologist
No shit, doesn't make the targets of it different or the implications any less relevant.
sprbwlshuffler
Yes it does. The charlottesville incident was malicious because those protesters weren't doing anything illegal or provocatively. The guy (1
sprbwlshuffler
who ran those ppl over is facing murder charges for it. BLM, however, don't have the right to prevent me from going to work by blocking (2)
sprbwlshuffler
highways. By blocking highways, you are preventing other people from living their lives. It's unlawful detainment. (3)
sprbwlshuffler
That was in response to BLM members blocking highways. Blocking highways can be seen as illegal cause is unlawful detention.
biolologist
But you think it should be a warrant for extrajudicial killing?
sprbwlshuffler
right to run those who are in the way, out of the way. There are other examples too, but not as extreme. Pregnant wife, ppl trying to (2)
sprbwlshuffler
I think that if there's an ambulance that is trying to get to a hospital, but protesters won't get out of the way, the ambulance has the (1)
sprbwlshuffler
get to their jobs, etc. Protesters have their right to protest. They don't have the right to obstruct me from living my life. (3)
sekseabritches
Sure I can definitely get behind that, only if you promise to help get rid of the communists after.
whaleblood
Better dead than red
MDtheGM
Where have we seen communists marching?
keillrandor
Antifa are more anarchists than communists
MDtheGM
though that was more black bloc, or did they co-opt antifa?
DirectorBright
Any antifa ralley.
MDtheGM
anti-facist doesn't equal communist, that's a bit of a leap... also antifa isn't a centralized organization
MDtheGM
next you'll tell me what BLM stands for despite again, not having a centralized org.
snarflex
Marxists, at least: college campuses.
MDtheGM
ah, the liberal arts want communism angle. Seems very simplified and ignorant of reality.
LizardEnterprises
No one's using laws to suppress free speech, dumbass, they're using their own speech to drown others out, as the dumbass founders intended.
snarflex
The heckler's veto--obliterating someone else's protected speech--is not itself protected speech. If it were, no one could ever speak.
LizardEnterprises
1/? You're wrong on two counts. Lets review them both. 1) What you described is not 'the hecklers veto'. 'The hecklers veto' is a legal term
LizardEnterprises
2/? for when free speech is suppressed - by a government - because they have just cause to believe that allowing the exercise of that speech
LizardEnterprises
9/9 reserved the area. Perfectly legal.
LizardEnterprises
8/? Example: The counter-protests in Boston just recently were so loud that they literally drowned out the small rally that had originally
LizardEnterprises
7/? police may ask you to leave, or arrest you on an unrelated charge, but the speech is protected - as are counterprotests in general.
LizardEnterprises
6/? 2) What you described is *not* the hecklers veto, and is ALSO protected speech. Private events/locations may choose to kick you out -
LizardEnterprises
5/? permit due to the likelihood of continued violence. That is legal under the current interpretation of the 1st amendment.
LizardEnterprises
4/? protest the day after Heather Hayer's death - even if they had the permit approved in advance - the authorities could revoke their
LizardEnterprises
3/? in that context, at that time, is likely to precipitate violence. Example: If the "unite the right" people wanted to hold another
BlueManticore
Not in the US(yet) but it's happening in the U.K./Canada
LizardEnterprises
1/2 The UK and Canada don't have free speech though, and they never have. Were I in England I could not say that the Queen and Theresa May
LizardEnterprises
2/3 Start every morning by getting on their knees and giving a the Russian ambassador a sloppy wet blowjob. But I live in America, so I can
omh1
As a Canadian, that would be completely legal, throw in Justin Trudeau for good measure, we do have freedom of speech 1/?
omh1
Phrased as freedom of expression, but we have much more significant restrictions on our rights when they impact the rights of another 2/?
LizardEnterprises
3/3 say that's how Trump starts his day. Both because it's protected speech, and also because its obviously true.
sprbwlshuffler
No ones using laws to suppress it yet. At least, not in the U.S. Antifa however is using violence to suppress free speech.
LizardEnterprises
Oh bullshit. Antifa didn't kill anyone. Trumps base did.
sprbwlshuffler
Trumps "base" only killed one woman that day. If they were there to intentionally cause violence, the count would have been a lot higher.
LizardEnterprises
He ran it into a fucking crowd. It was dumb luck he only killed one. If he'd had a better engine he might have killed all 20.
sprbwlshuffler
If Antifa were better shots with those bricks and bottles, they would've killed people too. They had intent just like the ass in the car did
snarflex
Antifa was upping the ante in places like Berkeley loooong before any of the recent business.
LizardEnterprises
"upping the ante" is not "killing people".
sprbwlshuffler
Antifa didn't kill anyone from lack of trying. They're just shit at killing people. They've been beating up ppl for having the wrong haircut
LizardEnterprises
Oh look, baseless bullshit accusations.
sprbwlshuffler
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhiprakash/this-man-says-he-was-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi-and-stabbed?utm_term=.ccnl114qd#.kpdwxxabR
sprbwlshuffler
And this poor bastard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgujX5mKGxk
sprbwlshuffler
Not baseless, you asshole.
dwilson0725
This is an argument people use for the Nazi rally, but then turn around and condemn the counter-protesters for being there.
sprbwlshuffler
Some counter protesters weren't letting ppl into the event, which led to scuffles. You can't legally prevent someone from going to an event.
dwilson0725
Yeah, and some protestors murdered someone. You can't legally kill people. The illegal actions of some can't prevent the protest of others.
DukeDark
Muh tu quoque fallacy! "I'm allowed to assault anyone I want and commit rampant arson because one guy with a car ran someone over!"
dwilson0725
What's the fallacy for the logic of "If the counter-protesters weren't there to protest, then he never would have ran people over!"
RedDwarfIV
If the counter-protestors had been there just to be there and present counter-arguments, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
dwilson0725
If the protesters hadn't been there, the counter protesters wouldn't need to be there, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
dwilson0725
Such an asinine fucking argument.
RedDwarfIV
The riots only happened because ANTIFA is more concerned with hitting their political enemies with bikelocks than the democratic process.
RedDwarfIV
They have the right to voice their opinions. You have the right to disagree with them. You don't get to go there to get in a fight.
dwilson0725
You also don't get to run people over because other people showed up to fight. The fuck is wrong with your brain?
RedDwarfIV
What is it about what I said that suggests I think they were right to run people over?
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
Honestly, i don't think FoS should cover hate speech. I should be able to say "fuck the irs" but not "death to all ______"
DirectorBright
The problem with a hate speech law is that government always attempts power creep, and its really, really easy to make criticism count.
MothMonsterMan
"Death to all IRS" am I doing this right?
BlueManticore
There are some in government who would argue being pro abortion is hate speech. Careful what you wish for.
CrazyGuyOnABike
As someone who's very much in favor of reproductive rights, IF the country bans abortion, being pro-abortion shouldn't get constitutional
CrazyGuyOnABike
protection. It's equivalent to incitement to lawless action.
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
I need you to clarify. How could being pro-abortion be seen as hate speech?
BlueManticore
I don't see it this way, but it could be argued that being pro abortion is being pro killing baby's. Think about the people in control (1/2)
BlueManticore
If the US government right now. Would they not abuse the power to sensor speech if we gave it to them?
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
You do make a good point. There would definitely need to be restrictions on what could be called "hate speech."
snarflex
And not just hate speech, but the sort of speech not protected even by the first amendment: a call to cause imminent harm.
sprbwlshuffler
So you're not for Freedom of Speech.
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
If you're saying "death to all Jews" then you shouldn't be covered by freedom of speech. If you are advocating for the murder of (continued)
sprbwlshuffler
Yes you should be. Words are not the same as action. In order for it to be inciting violence, there needs to be a likelihood that you are (1
sprbwlshuffler
going to commit the acts you claim you are. Nazis have been yelling about killin Jews for decades since the Holocaust, and jews (2)
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
People of any race, you should be held accountable for a hate crime. What if I, a Native person, said death to all white people? (Continued)
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
Or what if I said death to all cis people because I was trans? That's hate speech.
sprbwlshuffler
are still around. Words to not equate to violence. (3)
CrazyGuyOnABike
What about the boy incited to suicide by verbal and textual harassment? Does that not constitute violence?
sprbwlshuffler
It does because the court found that there was a correlation between her texts and him committing violence against himself.
IHaveReasonToBelieveThisAccountWasHacked
But words can lead to violence. What if I said someone should kill you and someone went off what I said and murdered you?
sprbwlshuffler
Legally, that would depend on the likelihood that the person you told to kill me actually does it. If we're in a crowd and you call me a (1)
sprbwlshuffler
Nazi and people around me come to beat me up and possibly kill me, that's incitement. However, if you were just chillin with other (2)
sprbwlshuffler
know me? What's the likelihood that that friend actually tries to kill me? (4)
sprbwlshuffler
friends and said "Oh that sprbwlshuffler, I hope you (whoever you're talking to) murder him. Then other questions arise. Does your friend(3)
GinjerbreadMan
In Canada we have hate speech laws. They stop people like the WBC from entering our country. Preach your "free speech" somewhere else.
snarflex
They're extralegal tribunals which some lawyers and academics think are more dangerous than what they're meant to curtail. How's that good?
smittywjmj
Suppressing speech with laws lets them play the victim and validates them. Speech should only be suppressed by discussion and society.
DrSparken
How does saying "this view is not valid, get fucked" validate them more than saying "this view is valid, please carry on"?
smittywjmj
The difference is the government saying it's invalid versus society saying it's invalid. Society changes, the government can't force change.
DrSparken
And that's what society is attempting to do, but free speech absolutists are saying "no, just leave them alone, let them speak"
smittywjmj
That sounds like a completely separate topic to what's being discussed, which is legislative restrictions on free speech.
Mockingbirb
The World Boxing Council may not enter Canada?
GreenYawgmoth
Westboro Baptist Church, but I like your version better.
sprbwlshuffler
Which is why Canada's going to shit. Too many immigrants unchecked and laws restricting speech are a recipe for disaster.
GinjerbreadMan
Unchecked immigrants? Not in Canada :) Besides you can take your hate speech to America. Those idiots will let you be Nazis ffs
sprbwlshuffler
Hate speech is free speech. Canada is already on its way to censor free speech with its islamaphobia law.
GinjerbreadMan
I wouldn't want to be part of any other country on Earth! Canada is one of the most free and rewarding countries in the world :)
EricFromAccounts
Cue a thousand idiots saying that Canada will inevitably become a fascist state because of this, while failing to explain exactly HOW.
snarflex
By these laws increasing in scope over time? This isn't a real court system! It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, and by law (1/2)
snarflex
the state pays for the accuser but not the accusee. There's zero cost to chill someone's speech if you have a shadow of a grievance. (2/2)
Sulkie
Fascist state is far-fetched, but it is not unreasonable to assume Canada's hate speech laws would expand over time.
AVeryVeryVeryVeryVeryVeryVeryLostDragon
Because apparently praising genocide is A-OK to these people.
ITalkAboutGoats
And people wonder why I say it's not just the card carrying kkk members that are an issue
snarflex
It's naive to think that this is what these tribunals are used for.
bitemark
People love to put this down as "thought control omg" but what it does is protect groups of people from being spoken out against simply 1/
snarflex
You do realize that these are guilty-until-proven-innocent extralegal tribunals, right? Its chilling effect is greater than its "protection"
bitemark
for who they are. Believe whatever you want, you just can't organize a rally against people because of their skin colour or religion.
necroheroic
Skin color no, but why not religion? It's just ideas, very often violent and nonscientific. Ppl should be allowed to criticize them imho.
flakeOfDoom
There's a difference between criticizing a religion or a religious organization, and discriminating against members of said religion.
flakeOfDoom
"The Catholic Church needs reform" is fine in a way "We need to send these goddamn papists to camps" just isn't, y'know?
snarflex
This is a distinction a lot of people don't understand, though (see Dawkins at Berkeley), but you're saying a tribunal will handle it fine?
DrSparken
Religion is one where there is a slippery slope to be made, as people would generally call Buddhism a religion, and how do you define it? 1/
DrSparken
Would "Bieber fever" be a religion? It certainly exhibited a lot of properties of one. Intolerance from religious basis certainly 2/
DrSparken
shouldn't be accepted, but it is not a fundamental property of religion, so attacking people for it shouldn't be allowed. If they make 3/
DrSparken
other hate speech, sure, go after that, all of that has been nicely clarified, but religion is too general. 4/4
NoMeGustaSand
Or you could be a grown ass adult and ignore people you think are offensive
CrazyGuyOnABike
Most people do not want to regulate speech merely for being offensive. It's speech that causes tangible damage, like harassing someone into
CrazyGuyOnABike
suicide, justifying violence against the other in rallies, and pursuing workplace discrimination.
EricFromAccounts
When black churchgoers and gay people in nightclubs get gunned down by simpletons influenced by hatespeech, how does one ignore the bullets?
d0o0o0d
Don't forget about those politicians who were playing baseball.
BurntAndBranded
Yes because limiting speech would've helped them... it's like advocating the restriction of thought.
ITalkAboutGoats
Actually, statistically, it does help.
BurntAndBranded
Where's the proof? Someone could have easily killed them on their own volition, hate speech is just an echo chamber.
snarflex
There was a shooting in DC based on one of those hate group designations handed out by the SPLC. An anti-hate shooting.
NoMeGustaSand
Your side has blood on its hands too, if we're being fair: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/frc-shooter-sentenced-to-25-years-097069
[deleted]
[deleted]
NoMeGustaSand
lol
illegalacorn
The majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 were committed by right-wing extremists.
NoMeGustaSand
Uuuuh no. That's why right wing violence is so newsworthy, because it's so rare.
snarflex
Hate speech may cause shooters. Videogames may cause shooters. Movies may cause shooters. LACK of these things may cause shooters.
NoMeGustaSand
Guns don't kill people, words do!
EricFromAccounts
Ah, so limiting Americans' abilities to access firearms is the key? Thanks for an excellent suggestion. And GOOD FUCKING LUCK with that one.
NoMeGustaSand
I'm sorry you live in a country where the government treats you like a child.
ModernVoodooApostasy
That sound you hear is not you being silenced. It's people disagreeing with your point of view. That's free speech, too.
barbwyre59
Too many people forget what that means
SomeDetroitGuy
That's not what this is addressing. It's addressing calls to legally ban offensive or unpopular political speech.
BlueManticore
No, people are literally calling for certain points of view to be illegal.
12rt2345g342563
And no one is taking them seriously. This is a manufactured boogeyman.
BlueManticore
Well I sure hope you're right 12rt2345g34563
TheCrustyMustard
You realize the post literally said LAWS, yeah?
Poserman
Attacking people you disagree with is silencing. /me looks at antifa
motorwaffle
Actively denying people the right to speak is the sound of silencing them.
12rt2345g342563
And private citizens are free to do so as long as they do not violate any other laws.
12rt2345g342563
Free speech does not guarantee you a platform for your bullshit, or that others must listen. How many times does this need to be said.
Jasperman62
Yell all you want.. Your right to disagree with me ends at the tip of my nose.. (or any part of me)
snarflex
OP's quote isn't disagreeing with that, but you're not reading the news if you think there's no overt *silencing* happening.
12rt2345g342563
Free speech does not guarantee you a platform. Private citizens and companies can silence you all they like.
Dingus2
They know exactly what they're saying and exactly why it's not true.
FrozenTime
Not a law, but Google's been demonetizing youtube videos for being "sensitive" a lot recently. Among many, Ron Paul was a target. Source:
12rt2345g342563
Google can do whatever they want.
fordmf
Hell, under Citizens United, Google probably *is* a person with its own free speech rights.
FrozenTime
Google's a monopoly at this point really. I bet they're only not classified as one because of how much government influence they have.
FrozenTime
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/901555436930859008
fordmf
Google's a corporation. They can choose to broadcast, or not, anything they like.
FrozenTime
So you'd be just as fine with it if they censored liberal views instead of conservative ones?
jfd8u438fdsfkds
That's not how freedom of speech works.
12rt2345g342563
I take it you have never actually read the first amendment or any of the challenges to it.
jfd8u438fdsfkds
The first amendment is a law that protects freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is much bigger than the first amendment.
raider111111
Disagreeing is one thing. Spraying bear mace in people's faces and burning down college campuses is something else entirely.
12rt2345g342563
And no one is saying that's okay. Don't strawman.
raider111111
But they are. Hell, the President was bashed in the media for weeks for saying there was evil on both sides. Antifa was given cover by MSM
malikcarr
I want to believe that, but the totally feckless response from police in many of these cases is alarming. I've been to a few TEA Parties and
malikcarr
if we got out of control like that and started torching cars I suspect the cops would have broken it up real fast. *As they should*.
roads88mph
Is that why I saw a white supremacist pull out his gun and shoot at the ground in front of counter-protestors *in view of the police*?
raider111111
Right, and in many cases the police were told to stand down during Antifa riots. Then they will go on TV describing what they did in 1
AnAccountToPostThis
Shutting down rallies you disagree with by counter protesting and using violence is definitely silencing.
corneliusgansevoort
Shut up.
TheFriendliestGiant
Violence I'll give you, sure, but how is having a bigger, louder counter-protest "silencing"? You have a right to speak, not speak unopposed
AnAccountToPostThis
Because many counter protests are specifically designed to silence the thing they're protesting.They almost always encircle or wall them off
AnAccountToPostThis
If more people show up then yeah, that's fine. but counter protests with the express purpose of shutting the other down shouldn't be a thing
12rt2345g342563
Anything short of violence is just another application of free speech.
magnumjenkins
Yep, and silencing hate speech with counter protests is not in conflict with the first amendment.
AnAccountToPostThis
I imagine if it was your cause of choice being silenced and called "hate speech" you would be keen to disagree.
magnumjenkins
There absolutely no moral equivalency to nazism, white supremacy or any "cause" that includes genocide and/or ethnic cleansing.
AnAccountToPostThis
Godwin's law be damned that sounds so close to something nazis were saying in 1940. They framed their enemies as morally repugnant for being
Felitaur
The key phrase was "using violence."
AnAccountToPostThis
I hate how much I've had to "defend" nazis recently... Just let them speak and prove themselves to be idiots rather than shutting them down.
BirbsAreImportant
More idiots rally around them and idiots are dangerous in large volumes. Chanting "Jews will not replace us". Yup, not Nazis.
AnAccountToPostThis
That's the thing. They don't HAVE volume. Charlottesville was the NATIONAL population of nazis and they didn't break 200.
BirbsAreImportant
Complacency is how the holocaust happened. And I think you mean "national VOCAL population"
raider111111
Right! I heard this black guy say that he is for keeping up the conf flags so he can know where the assholes are. Pretty spot on.
biolologist
We did, and they murdered someone and put dozens more in the hospital.
AnAccountToPostThis
Letting them speak would have meant letting 100 idiots chant for a day and go home. Not flooding the streets with bodies until they flee.
DirectorBright
I fail to see how not allowing them to speak would stop a terror attack.
BirbsAreImportant
There wouldn't have been a counter protest. They wouldn't be able to rally more people around there cause.
icounttopotato
Until it becomes the banning of so called "hate speech". Exactly the kind of speech the constitution defends. Love speech doesn't require it
AgolfHiller
What is hate speech? Words have the power YOU give the person saying it
RocketRodster
"cops, that dude raped me"
aesthesia1
Hate speech is more than just hurt feefees. It is the spread of false, vitriolic ideas/prejudices that actively harm innocent people.
ModernVoodooApostasy
You are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Your rights end at my nose, chief.
icounttopotato
Agreed, however, my point stands. Unpopular opinions are the meat and potatoes of free speech.
Ripplingtwinkie
Yelling fire in a theater is very different than expressing hate through speech.
corneliusgansevoort
How about yelling "let's gang up on those black guys since we don't like them and there's more of us than there are of them"
mineovermatter
That's explicitly inciting action in the moment.
Zardo03
That has nothing to do with "hate speech".
Potatopeelerkind
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't an opinion. Free speech protects opinions.
ITalkAboutGoats
But hate speech results in deaths. So yeah.
Imgurkoff69
What constitutes as hate speech, then? Who sets the standard?
illegalacorn
Defending hate speech as free speech legitimizes genocide as a valid political viewpoint.
TheZompocalypse
"The moon landing was faked" is also an invalid political viewpoint but you let them talk so people can hear how stupid they sound.
DirectorBright
Criminalizing hate speech allows censorship of any opinion the government disapproves of.
NoMeGustaSand
Websites getting shut down and rallies getting assaulted sounds more like silencing to me.
PiggyWobbles
Private companies dont have a responsibility to facilitate extremism. You might not like it but its neither illegal nor unconstitutional
aesthesia1
Silencing? You mean like when the alt- right encouraged lone wolf terror attacks on counter-protesters on its own websites/1
aesthesia1
By actively suggesting that people should drive cars into them days before the charlottsville rally in which a person was killed in this/2
NoMeGustaSand
Where did suggest that? I'm genuinely curious.
aesthesia1
They had an "all lives splatter" meme going around on multiples alt right boards. You could probably find on the popular alt-right sites/1
aesthesia1
Method for simply exercising her own right to free speech? Say! Doesn't the encouragement of terror attacks count as a call to violence,/3
aesthesia1
Which is specifically not protected under the first amendment, and is grounds for a legally motivated shutdown/investigation?4/4
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Websites being "shut down"? If I'm running an ISP and I find out that some group is hosting horrible shit that I don't agree with on MY /1
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
servers, do I not have a right to say I no longer want them as a customer? Or are you proposing a law that allows the govt to force me to /2
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
host everyone regardless of content? /3
NoMeGustaSand
And if the Internet mob manages to pressure all ISP's then what? The end result is no different from censorship.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
The internet mob? You mean, the citizens of the US? Are you claiming that's somehow govt censorship? No one's protected from private /1
NoMeGustaSand
The citizens of the US are for free speech, the far-left who want to censor everyone w/ government or corporate power are the minority.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
censorship. Individual citizens can tell you to shut up. Your apt building can take your flyer off the bullies board. Your work can fire /2
axiomatik
Freedom of speech protects your right from the *government*. Companies have the right to not host your content.
stagg572
If you believe the internet is a utility and net neutrality etc is vital, then yeah, it should be more protected.
d0o0o0d
Kinda depends on if the business is considered a Public Accommodation, and the basis for refusing service.
AgainstMethod
The 1st Amendment protects you from government censorship. That doesn't imply the government is the only one capable of censorship.
RocketRodster
I'm reminded of citizen's united.
AgainstMethod
(1) There's lots of non-governmental power that can be used against people to restrict their freedom.
AgainstMethod
(2) Just because it's not dealt with in the Bill of Rights doesn't make it cool.
flapperfemmefatale
agreed, but don't cite the First Amendment as defense against it and expect to be taken seriously
NoMeGustaSand
If all companies join together to censor certain ideas, isn't the end result the same? I miss when liberals were against corporate power.
NoMeGustaSand
Basically, the government can outsource censorship and you're ok with it because "1st AmmENdMent OnLY pRoTEctS yOU fRoM THe GoVErnmEnT"
PaintedSlate
You miss when there were liberal people in the U.S. anywhere close to political viability. "Liberal" is now used against moderate-conserv.
emkev
Then create and host your own website.
kogamikirito
Except that the the website will need to be hosted by a company, which presumably wants to silence you
AncientSeraph
You can't force websites to host what you want, just like you can't force McDonald's to have on the menu what you want.
corneliusgansevoort
I miss when republicans were against white suppremacy.
NoMeGustaSand
If Mitch McConnel, Paul Ryan, and Reince Priebus aren't enough for you than it's not like there's anything they could do to convince you.
PizzaStation
Except there are actual calls for government censorship of "hate speech"
BirbsAreImportant
And the US is one of the few developed countries that allows hate speech. Try that shit in Germany.
PizzaStation
And rightly so. "Hate speech" is far too ambiguous and easily leads to further encroachment on free speech.
PizzaStation
I'll take my chances with allowing people to say mean things.
biolologist
There is also actual legislation right now to legalize vehicular manslaughter of protestors so...
PizzaStation
Ok... What does that have to do with this thread about speech and censorship?
Amythyst
Charlottesville.
PizzaStation
Still has absolutely nothing to do with my response to the guy saying "people disagreeing with you doesn't violate freedom of speech."
UpVoteMonster
The scary part is 7 people disagreed with what you said.
BlueManticore
He's wrong about the post.... the picture is talking to people who want the gov to decide what ppl can say. Why it says "laws"
12rt2345g342563
Something that doesn't exist in this country and would violate the first amendment. Another manufactured boogeyman. Like Sharia law.
daggypants
Lol.. that's meant to be ironic right..
UpVoteMonster
I get what you mean LOL. Hypocritical in an abstract way but this is a constitutional right in the USA
jfd8u438fdsfkds
The scary part is that 500+ people agreed with this disgusting statement.
12rt2345g342563
It's sad that you have absolutely no clue what free speech is. And a little scary.
fortnitefemboy
My best explanation for their viewpoint is that they think Modern's comment is saying that people who disagree should be protected at all 1/
fortnitefemboy
costs, whether their speech is protected by the constitution or not (calls to violence, ect.) In reality, Modern's comment is a more 2/
fortnitefemboy
generalized statement, aimed more at people who entirely want to silence those who disagree, and not specifically those whose speech 3/4
fortnitefemboy
can objectively be considered a call to violence. (fuck the character limit)
supersomatic
No the scary part is that if I posted that picture of the guy being arrested for the Nazi salute, people would downvote me.
UpVoteMonster
What's wrong with being a nazi?
jfd8u438fdsfkds
Are you being serious right now.
UpVoteMonster
No
thesupremeDIP
Being a nazi
UpVoteMonster
It's a joke.
ModernVoodooApostasy
Sadly, people vote up or down based on perceived political affiliation, not content.
ThatAintRightItsAllLeft
I have no affiliations, only gang relation according to record.
UpVoteMonster
What political affiliation could his comment even have?
BoltActionGearbox
"I disagree with what this comment says, so they must be a/an [alt-right/libtard] dickhead"
Findilis
The one where they are the smart / right side and the others are so dumb / wrong would be my guess.
d0o0o0d
Free speech is cool, the Heckler's Veto is not. If you're preventing others from being heard, what you are doing is not 'free speech'.
roads88mph
If what others are saying is Nazism, fuck those people, and fuck your terms, including "disagreeing".
PiggyWobbles
And yet everyone upvotes the picture of protesters blocking the view of westboro baptist church goons... thats the same thing
d0o0o0d
The WBC goons try to use the Heckler's Veto to disrupt other people's event to provoke assaults. Then they sue for civil rights violations.
12rt2345g342563
The "Heckler's Veto" is free speech. You can either accept that. Try to change the constitution. Or move to another country.
omh1
Heckler's Veto is a legal term for when the government prevents an act of free speech for fear of violence by an opposing group 1/2
BirbsAreImportant
I don't need to here people, armed with lethal weapons and wearing makeshift riot gear, chanting "Jews will not replace us"
roads88mph
Literally nobody needs to hear that
OwlFarm
You do not have the right to be heard nor do you have the right to avoid consequence for what you say.
AgainstMethod
Heckler's Veto is still speech, still protected by the constitution.
12rt2345g342563
Free speech means people get to vehemently and openly disagree. Anything that does not violate another law is allowed.
rossimus
1st amendment applies to the government only, not private citizens nor private organizations.
d0o0o0d
Private citizens can and are prosecuted for violating other citizens' civil rights.
d0o0o0d
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/federal-prosecutions-civil-rights-violations.html
12rt2345g342563
You completely and utterly missed the point.
d0o0o0d
Lots of people are missing the point. Once upon a time, the courts thought the 1st A only applied to the Feds, and states could censor.
AgainstMethod
If it's legal to spend $1B buying journalists & dominating the media, it's got to be legal to shout real loud on the street, too.
d0o0o0d
Disrupting an event is prosecutable as disturbing the peace, and may be a civil rights violation.
RocketRodster
they have permits too
d0o0o0d
For the same time and location? Extremely unlikely unless it's a very large space.
snarflex
I think this is what you call a strawman argument.
AgainstMethod
No, if I'm making the argument and not attributing it to anyone else, it's just called a "bad" argument.
LoudBirb
That depends. The freedom of speech granted by the constitution is freedom from the gov. persecuting you. People can still choose not to...
malexmatt
The Constitution does not grant freedom of speech. It is a fundamental right of a free people. The Constitution merely recognizes that
LoudBirb
Give you a platform from which to be heard, so long as they, themselves, aren't violating any laws.
d0o0o0d
...you may want to think for a bit about why government entities keep issuing event permits to groups expressing unpopular ideas.
FnordGallop
Unpopular ideas are fine, the law allows it. And the law allows counterprotest. The law also allows protection of the public. No surprise.
snarflex
Because they're legally required to? Would you prefer a world where Bob down at the licensing office is deciding who can speak?
eWebs
I think they're saying that Group 1 is using freedom of speech in an attempt to stop Group B from being able to speak freely. <1/2>
jdurs
Did he really say this in the show? I don't remember that scene.
UnpopularScrotum
Maybe the problem is we're too concerned with groups instead of the rights of the individual.
BrisketSandwich24
Groups have no rights and do not exist. They are simply an abstract social construct. Only individuals exist and have rights
12rt2345g342563
Well I mean a corporation is a group and they have rights.
BrisketSandwich24
They don't have any legitimate rights. You mean that the government grants them special favors. That's not the same thing.
SnugglesaurusRex
Group 1, if in power would eliminate free speech, and would commit genocides. Group B fights Group 1. So their the same really.
eWebs
<2/2> And Group B is doing the same. Does that make sense? It is all very ridiculous.
RocketRodster
The rallies were cancelled because not enough people would show up. The excuses were made up later.
magnumjenkins
Whatever happened to group A and group 2
patolucas1977
They were silenced, obviously
BlueManticore
No... there are people out there fighting to make some speech illegal. Look what happening in Germany/the EU.
12rt2345g342563
Your posts seem to be a broken record. Are you trying to imply hate speech laws. Which have existed in most western countries for decades
12rt2345g342563
are inevitable here? Seems like a bit of fear mongering and slippery slope fallacy going on.
BlueManticore
True, the slippery slope argument is garbage... doesn't make me any less afraid.
notacoldwarkid
What exactly is happening in Germany?
BlueManticore
Really all of Europe... insulting someone is a hate crime over there.
BrisketSandwich24
And he definition of an insult is vague and always widening. Very slippery slope.
BlueManticore
Lol the law doesn't state "insults are illegal"
notacoldwarkid
I cannot talk for all of Europe but certainly not here in Germany. The concept of a hate crime does not exist here
BlueManticore
My bad for lumping Germany in with everything. Really all that happened there was them shutting down the "extremist" publication.
BlueManticore
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/europe/germany-bans-far-left-antifa-website.html
notacoldwarkid
in Germany, freedom of speech does not extent to anti democratic ideas. Isis, as an example, are in their very nature hostile towards ->
notacoldwarkid
democracy and consequently they are not free to voice their anti democratic ideas. The same applies to the extreme left