Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

They are just words.  When words become action, or (in part) teaching... then we have a problem.

All speech is performative.

Personally, I agree. Legally, I don't. There's a difference on speech that merely states something and speech that incites others to action.

The government has and should have a difficult time restricting speech given the first amendment freedom of s peach. Fundamental Rights

The government can restrict speech inciting others to violence or plain unlawfulness. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judging a law's constitutionality used when a fundamental right or suspect classification is invoked in a law. Under strict scrutiny, the government can only regulate the fundamental right or suspect class as such if 1.) there is a compelling government interest 2.) the means of accomplishing that interest is narrowly tailored to it. Here, the government has a compelling interest in maintaining law and order which means protecting its citizenry from violence. The means to accomplish this interest in laws prohibiting speech inciting violence are to prohibit only such speech as incites others to violence, which the government is compelled to prevent. Thus, the government's compelling interest in preventing violence and the narrowly tailored means to achieve this interest are a valid restriction on speech even in light of the first amendment's fundamental right of free speech.

At least that's the CRAC (Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) Answer.

Personally, people being anti gay were the reason I was terrified to go to school as a child. They made my life a thousand times harder than it had to be for no reason. Fuck them. I am bitter beyond belief due to this and if I could, I would torture them all for the hell of it, slowly and methodically. Unfortunately, I couldn't get away with doing so. I'm not thin skinned so much as I am vengeful and possessed of a long, unforgiving memory.

[Vector]

Eh, I think we have to agree to disagree as rhetoric students and lawyers =)  Our different backgrounds give us different definitions.

[SalmonGod]

You don't seem to understand that the way people talk reflects the way people think, affects the way other people think, and that the way people think and communicate matters in general.

Seconding this. 

As pointed out by Catherine MacKinnon -- "Man fucks woman.  Subject verb object."

Whether you agree with that specific example or not (I brought it up with one friend who pointed out that he could just as easily say "Woman fucks man")  it's hard to argue that the way we construct our language doesn't feed both into and out of our thought processes.  That quote was a real thought opener for me, personally.  The majority of people think verbally, after all.  The words we think to ourselves don't just burst forth from some ether.  There are deeper processes that we don't experience directly that formulate language from connections between concepts.  Through picking apart language, we can learn a lot about our true nature, and changing our language habits can lead to a change in our thinking habits.

Of course, how much this lends support to practices of censorship or political correctness is still entirely up for debate.

[Truean]

Eh, I think we have to agree to disagree as rhetoric students and lawyers =)  Our different backgrounds give us different definitions.

Probably. Like I said, I personally agree with you.

You don't seem to understand that the way people talk reflects the way people think, affects the way other people think, and that the way people think and communicate matters in general.

Seconding this. 

As pointed out by Catherine MacKinnon -- "Man fucks woman.  Subject verb object."

Whether you agree with that specific example or not (I brought it up with one friend who pointed out that he could just as easily say "Woman fucks man")  it's hard to argue that the way we construct our language doesn't feed both into and out of our thought processes.  That quote was a real thought opener for me, personally.  The majority of people think verbally, after all.  The words we think to ourselves don't just burst forth from some ether.  There are deeper processes that we don't experience directly that formulate language from connections between concepts.  Through picking apart language, we can learn a lot about our true nature, and changing our language habits can lead to a change in our thinking habits.

Of course, how much this lends support to practices of censorship or political correctness is still entirely up for debate.

Ditto. How you speak to whom matters a lot. People don't seem to get that but it really does matter.

[Virex]

They are just words.  When words become action, or (in part) teaching... then we have a problem.

All speech is performative.

Personally, I agree. Legally, I don't. There's a difference on speech that merely states something and speech that incites others to action.

The government has and should have a difficult time restricting speech given the first amendment freedom of s peach. Fundamental Rights

The government can restrict speech inciting others to violence or plain unlawfulness. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judging a law's constitutionality used when a fundamental right or suspect classification is invoked in a law. Under strict scrutiny, the government can only regulate the fundamental right or suspect class as such if 1.) there is a compelling government interest 2.) the means of accomplishing that interest is narrowly tailored to it. Here, the government has a compelling interest in maintaining law and order which means protecting its citizenry from violence. The means to accomplish this interest in laws prohibiting speech inciting violence are to prohibit only such speech as incites others to violence, which the government is compelled to prevent. Thus, the government's compelling interest in preventing violence and the narrowly tailored means to achieve this interest are a valid restriction on speech even in light of the first amendment's fundamental right of free speech.

At least that's the CRAC (Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) Answer.

Personally, people being anti gay were the reason I was terrified to go to school as a child. They made my life a thousand times harder than it had to be for no reason. Fuck them. I am bitter beyond belief due to this and if I could, I would torture them all for the hell of it, slowly and methodically. Unfortunately, I couldn't get away with doing so.

Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?

[Phmcw]

Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?

My, my, do I agree with you. Protection of minority through forbidding hate speech is exactly why Geert Wilders should have been fined.

Edit: hu, and there I realize that under that exact definition neither the Coran, the bible and the Thora should be legal.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... mind blown and argument destroyed.
 Re edit: not completely though : you could deem the fact of expressing the opinion yourself illegal but not the fact of spreading document encouraging such discrimination.

[Truean]

"The answer to hate speech is never less speech but more speech; speech against and speech disproving bigotry. Man can do more through his own decision than through our decree." ~ Justice Burger.

Legally? No. Not in the United States.

First and foremost, women are a semi suspect rather than suspect class. This means laws against them are not subject to strict scrutiny but rather "intermediate scrutiny." This means the law is upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose.

The simplest way I can explain it is that separate but equal is ok when it comes to women in our society: Restrooms, Changing/Fitting/Locker Rooms, Maternity Leave. We are not ready to have unisex bathrooms.

Moreover, no, hateful speech is protected. The KKK has the right to speak as do Neo Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't like a damn one of those groups. So long as their actual speech does not incite themselves or others to illegality or violence they are permitted to speak. The same is true of obscenities and vulgarities, though for some reason, these are subject to more regulation.

In simple sum, a ____________ government interest is whatever the Supreme Court says.

[SalmonGod]

I don't believe social progress can be made if the issues are driven underground, anyway.  Yeah, it allows bigots to be hurtful.  It also allows them to be known and contested.

[Virex]

Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?

My, my, do I agree with you. Protection of minority through forbidding hate speech is exactly why Geert Wilders should have been fined.

Edit: hu, and there I realize that under that exact definition neither the Coran, the bible and the Thora should be legal.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... mind blown and argument destroyed.
 Re edit: not completely though : you could deem the fact of expressing the opinion yourself illegal but not the fact of spreading document encouraging such discrimination.

Why should a "holy" book be above scruteny? Especillay if it's the prime reason for the oppresion of women worldwide?

[G-Flex]

Personally, I agree. Legally, I don't. There's a difference on speech that merely states something and speech that incites others to action.

The government has and should have a difficult time restricting speech given the first amendment freedom of s peach. Fundamental Rights

I don't think anyone is saying, though, that the right to say bigoted things should be made illegal, when it isn't a direct call to action. Obviously, schoolchildren are a different matter legally, and so is harassing particular individuals.

Anti-gay bullying, and bullying in general, shouldn't be tolerated in schools. This is for two important reasons though: For one, the rights a child has in a school are not the same as those of a legal adult (and for good reason, at least in cases like this), and bullying (done by individuals or groups) is a form of harassment that isn't always a necessary part of hate speech.

Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?

This is extremely dangerous reasoning. It's against the very foundation of "freedom of speech" to make it illegal to ever say something simply because it's considered incorrect. McCarthyism was bad enough.

Yeah, hate speech is a stupid thing, but if someone thinks that women belong in the kitchen, he has a right to do so. Stifling the opposition's right to speech is propaganda in itself, is not a good way to promote rational discourse, and would engender even more distrust in the government. If you tell a bunch of racist groups that their ideas are officially considered dangerous and illegal to speak of, you're just adding fuel to the fire.



Pseudo-edit: Ninja'd by Truean. The quote he posted says it better than I could.
Pseudo-edit 2: And by two other people as well, apparently.

[Phmcw]

"The answer to hate speech is never less speech but more speech; speech against and speech disproving bigotry" ~ Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Legally? No.

First and foremost, women are a semi suspect rather than suspect class. This means laws against them are not subject to strict scrutiny but rather "intermediate scrutiny." This means the law is upheld if it is substantially related to an important government purpose.

The simplest way I can explain it is that separate but equal is ok when it comes to women in our society: Restrooms, Changing/Fitting/Locker Rooms, Maternity Leave. We are not ready to have unisex bathrooms.

Moreover, no, hateful speech is protected. The KKK has the right to speak as do Neo Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't like a damn one of those groups. So long as their actual speech does not incite themselves or others to illegality or violence they are permitted to speak. The same is true of obscenities and vulgarities, though for some reason, these are subject to more regulation.

In simple sum, a ____________ government interest is whatever the Supreme Court says.

You're speaking as an American. Freedom of speech is not in our constitution.
But this argument has always been kind of weak : harassment is forbidden, and defamation too, if I'm not mistaken.
Hate speech could be deemed a nuisance to society, and be treated as such.
Personally, I am ok with light fines, and small community work for repeating offenders. We do it without adverse effect in Belgium.

[SalmonGod]

Why should a "holy" book be above scruteny? Especillay if it's the prime reason for the oppresion of women worldwide?

And it's not above scrutiny.  It's scrutinized all the time.  I hope you're not suggesting that it would be a good idea to include banning of religious texts in any ban on hate speech.

[Nadaka]

Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?

Here is where liberalism comes into conflict with that brand of progressivism. The government should not have any interest in preventing speech of any kind because it is offensive to someone. If you can forbid "misogynistic propaganda", you can forbid other offensive material like pornography, teaching of evolution, discussing sexuality or even "feminist propaganda".

However noble or ignoble ones intentions, censorship by the government isn't a good idea.

[Phmcw]

Why should a "holy" book be above scruteny? Especillay if it's the prime reason for the oppresion of women worldwide?

Because even "Mein Kampf" should not be banned. How else could you study Nazism?
And while banning loud, outspoken action is one thing, banning document and books is something else.

Edit: I don't get the hardcore moral relativism on this forum. "You can't produce hate speech else you'll get light penalty" allow us to get mostly clean newspaper and no outspoken racist party.

you can forbid other offensive material like pornography, teaching of evolution, discussing sexuality or even "feminist propaganda".

No you can't : those are not hate speech. The thing is : hate speech is defamation at group level. Defamation of the individual is already forbidden, isn't it? You can still say anything not outright calumnious. Then why would hate speech be different from calumny?

[Truean]

You're speaking as an American. Freedom of speech is not in our constitution.
But this argument has always been kind of weak : harassment is forbidden, and defamation too, if I'm not mistaken.
Hate speech could be deemed a nuisance to society, and be treated as such.
Personally, I am ok with light fines, and small community work for repeating offenders. We do it without adverse effect in Belgium.

And you're speaking as a European.... I say what I say because it is what I know; all do the same.

It isn't a weak argument by the way. Do you believe you can force someone not to hate? That's the unspoken premise behind banning hate speech. If you let them talk then,

a.) Everyone now knows who they are and to avoid them.
b.) People can discuss why it is wrong.

This method might actually convince someone that hating is wrong. A ban is too simple a method to work on such a complex problem.

Incidentally, "Mein Kampf" is a masterpiece of propaganda and should be required reading with proper instruction as a cautionary tale on why propaganda is wrong.