"if we do X it will fail because people will make it fail even if the plan works". - People will make it fail but the plan still works?
"people will vote themselves more, and politicians will sell it to get votes" - works for Bernie Sanders and other Democrats. Are you saying those politicians aren't selling entitlements for votes?
"the government will keep raising taxes" and "rich people will just not pay taxes" - Sanders wants to raise taxes to pay for the entitlements he promises. Isn't that the basis of "more money" that we are talking about? isn't an issue of tax havens and off shore holdings? You are not making any sense. There is evidence for these things.
'Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and succeeded" - That is a little over simplified. The New Deal helped some but it wasn't the quick fix that saved the nation. Part of it was war. There were many reasons for why the US finally got out of the Depression. Simplifying it down to one policy decision is revisionism.
Nordic states, as I mentioned before, subsidize their welfare on oil and other natural resources that are also a homogeneous population a fraction of the size. Are you saying we should burn all our natural resources to pay for welfare? Apples and oranges.
"Constitution claimed to make a "More Perfect Union"?" - Yes an introduction to the codified law. Now what is the codified law belaying that introduction? How do you make "a more perfect union"? The attempt was to give the federal government certain powers and the states the other powers. The states are concerned with the people. The federal government is not as the Constitution does not grant that power to the federal government. You are using the preamble to broaden the law to suit your wants. Why would that not happen for other entitlements?
" I am claiming to be smarter than them" - you are a self aggrandizing fool.
Hold the phone. Basic pessimism? That is your interpretation not my argument. Additionally, what is pessimistic about people voting themselves more money? What rational person would not give themselves a raise if they could?
This has been a huge problem for democracies since their very inception. Even Benjamin Franklin warned; "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.". Why was Franklin wrong and you're right?
You straw-man the issue and dismiss it because you think reality is pessimistic because the lofty dreams of your utopia won't work when put under the auspices of The People.
If those are your thoughts you are going to mess up. Part of doing a good interview is knowing how to relax. The people on the other-side of the table have been the interviewee before they understand people are nervous and likely will be accepting of some level of nervousness. After-all, it isn't (likely) an interview for an actor or public speaker but if you completely fumble because you keep thinking "don't mess up, don't mess up" and come off as a nervous wreck then it seems more likely that is your character and no one wants to work with unstable nervous wrecks. Leave the world at the door. It will be there when you finish
Learn how to give proper interviews. The state labor department should provide some training and mock interviews to help you.
Sure and if entitlement reform debates in the US has taught me anything is that the only direction those numbers go is up. Anyone even suggesting any way to change those systems are derailed as "elites. hate the poor. in the pocket of the rich" etc. That doesn't look like a system that will be sustainable in anyway because of human nature and our system giving them power to vote. Again, why have less when I can vote for more?
we can amend the Constitution
Actually, if the Constitution was amended to allow the federal government to do the current state of welfare would be a win. As it stands now current federal entitlements are built on the broad and misinterpretation of the general welfare clause. The States are suppose to be concerned with the peoples welfare while the federal government should only be concerned with the general welfare of the states. So we haven't even done the most basic step for the current entitlements why would that be different for an even greater expansion of entitlements?
complain about our needs, and they figure out how to deal with it
Sure, and you miss my point. My needs are more. I voted for you to give me more. Now you figure out how to give me more or else I will vote for someone who will. It isn't the smartest but the one that gives me what I want. Your " tax rate is permanently-fixed and never increases. The benefit increases faster than inflation because of this" is a dream because of that basic simple mindedness that will elect someone willing to give the voter more. You mention Nordic countries who have subsidized their welfare on oil and natural resources. Can they maintain their welfare state without that natural resource subsidy? Burn Fossil Fuels for welfare!
you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended.
It is because whenever I read any law trying to define hate speech there is a subjective component.
g thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments.
no because one is a de facto town square. The discussion is whether Facebook is a de jure town square and that they should be stewards of rights just like a phone company can't kick you off the line for being a nazi. Or just like a baker and a gay wedding cake.
racial vilification
There are laws to stop actions. Not words. That is the difference. Please recognize the difference.
I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge
He was convicted for being "grossly offensive" and is awaiting sentencing. His trial lasted longer than the Nuremberg trials. Think about that for a second because that is the fruit of hate speech law and culture. Don't assume I am conflating anything if you do not know the all facts. It is well known enough that a simple search will give you plenty of information.
malice must be shown to be convicted.
Yes there is a high bar. Yes motives matter as does context. You are not saying anything relevant to the underlying point.
offend, insult, humiliate
All subjective. All different for everyone.
So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'?
Because you do not have free speech if you have "hate speech". Offensive speech is the point of protecting speech. If you ban offensive speech you ban any speech. You seem to think we can all hold hands and sing koombaya if only certain words and idea were banned. The entire premise is built on a lack of liberty and a lack of a basic human right. Common law had its faults and had its successes. The philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence and the codified protection in the Constitution are some of the best legal works we can look at. If you want hate speech as law then you much demonstrate why that philosophy and that codified protection is obsolete. I hope you never succeed because the world will be made worse just as the UK is getting worse. Convicted for "grossly offensive" my ass.
I do not understand what appears, to me, to be hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance.
Then you have poor reading comprehension as I stated why. The difference is action. In one case, you must take action to defend yourself and reputation. In the other case, you do not.
I'm arguing that the limitations imposed on the right to free speech by governments with respect to legislation and common law precedent is of the same type and kind as the limitations for other forms of harmful speech.
And I was taking your "words that wound" to its logical conclusion when taken to the context of law. "Crying is a physical response to harm. Words can make people cry. Therefore words cause physical harm and should be banned. ". I don't care what link you provide if the underlying premise is that society should treat adults as children.
Jailing someone because they said something that offended you is not possible under laws relating to defamation and is not possible under laws relating to 'hate speech'
And yet, we are getting to see that this is patently false. It's not just offended. Remember it's "Grossly offensive".
And that conflating this with denial of service for violation of TOS is ignorant at best.
And arguing a point built on faulty assumptions when you don't have all the facts makes you look like an ass.
I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective.
I disagree. The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing. Everyone has different points at which they take offense. Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is. Libel, slander, threats, etc. Have objective definitions that we all can understand and it doesn't require us to subjectively quantify anything like "offense". Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation, may initiate legal investigations, ruin your career, etc. There is nothing subjective about understanding that libelous statement and why it isn't allowed. Compared that to, the Fourteen Words. If you are not white, your reputation isn't damage. The police are not going to start investigating you. Your career won't be ruined. No harm is caused until there is an action to follow. That is the fundamental difference.
that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law
I am not arguing that government is a singular entity of tyranny. I am arguing that government is made of people and people can be tyrannical even in distributed levels of power. The whole point of checks and balances (distributed power) is recognize that humans are flawed creatures and that when given the chance can and will abuse others. Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities. The 2nd, for example, has historical precedent to the 1689 Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean that the right ascribed were correct by being limited to Protestants. Yet, we can understand the forethought of such a right in the context of a different age. If we recognize we are no different than our forefathers than the lessons they learned will help us create a better future just as they left us with a good future. Too often I hear people dismiss history because "they are different". They understand the world better. They can do it right this time. The current infatuation with hate speech is people forgetting history and thinking they are different because of Twitter. Social media does not change human nature. It does not change the conditions for tyranny to win over liberty.
Words that wound
I am not going to respond to all of your post but this really bugs me. Words that wound AKA speech is violence. That is unadulterated bullshit. Sure, they can have an impact. Of course social media can influence an election just like the printing press. But if you, as an adult, cannot overcome mean words then you are no more mature than a child. Censoring anything because "speech is violence" is a childs response. Being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others which includes you getting over mean words and ideas. This line of reasoning amounts to. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Jail him!". It is not appropriate for society to behave as a child to coddle the feelings of every delicate snowflake. Science can offend people therefore science is violence. Should we censor science too?
Douglas Adams
If you don't like the choice of lizards run for office. Stop expecting anyone else to solve your problems when you have the power to do it yourself.
you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole
Yes. Because the law cannot accurately describe subjectivity through which "hate speech" is routinely and only able to be defined properly in the context of law. It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.
If you have subjective limitations on a right then that right is effectively null because it becomes a privilege of the government to take away by its own discretion and interpretation. It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.
You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations
You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime. Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm. Libel, credible threats, defamation, etc. all can damage another persons rights, property, and liberty. It requires a person to respond to defend themselves. Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm. A racist can be a racist that doesn't cause harm to anyone even if they express their racist views. It doesn't require anyone to respond to defend their rights, property, and liberty. Racism requires action to take away the rights, property, and liberty of anyone. That action is already illegal in all circumstances.
all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.
No. You are uninhibitedly free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. Speech has very limited capacity to infringe on rights in and of itself. That limited capacity is where you see those limitations such as libel and credible threats. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are an attempt to protect those inalienable rights that you are born with. They do not come from government and it is the role of government to protect those rights not to take them away because you are subjectively offended.
hey are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots
All of language is a label so that we can properly understand each other. You are blind if you cannot see the philosophical differences of "left" and "right". You and I have a fundamental philosophical different understanding of rights and the role of government and that difference will impact our voting behavior. It may look tribal because in some respects it is. Those plutocrats are elected by people who chose them to be the plutocrat to represent them in the halls of power.
what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult..."
>culture to act like children
For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.
That is rather ablist of you. Particularly so that one explanation for high suicidality in the trans community is because of rude words or as they say "denying their humanity" because of not using preferred pronouns or the mere idea that "there are only 2 genders".
a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes...better concept than the "reasonable person"
It is overly sensitive to anything that is "offensive" to the prevailing culture in power charged with executing the law. The "reasonable person" is sidelined by the police, prosecutor, and judge using vague law to get what they want. I think any "reasonable person" can understand that Count Dankula isn't a secret nazi using his pug to make nazism more palatable to the average person. Yet, that is irrelevant because "grossly offensive" intent be damned. A better concept is to not mess with such dangerous precedents. A better concept is to not use vague law that can be abused with subjectivity.
Yes, I know. That is why I said what I said. Recognizing the existing law applied to a "reasonable person" doesn't address what you already have broadly stated is your position in previous discussions nor does it address the underlying change in culture in regards to speech. "speech is violence" is the new norm through which academics justify censorship. That you defended with "Words literally have a physical affect" and "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech".
Claiming "I was merely explaining the science and the law and not advocating either" is bullshit. You are defending "speech is violence" because "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech" because "words have a physical affect".
You are defending a culture to act like children. I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law. The UK is taking the lead and I can only imagine because there are a lot of people that think like you and mock,as you say, 'freeze peach'. I am not angry or triggered or w/e for things you say. I am concerned with the culture you advocate.
you were triggered by my username
Some reason when I see your username I think of Mojo Jojo. No particular reason. Not trying to be insulting. He says his name a particular way that I hear when I read your name. Maybe I am triggered and I need to save me from the evil scientist. Wait... Are you a scientist? @_@ God save me.
Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities. You are using a childs response to mean words as an appropriate action for the government. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. (A physical response!) I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Throw him in jail.". I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.
Treat the underlying condition (bullying, stress, depression, mental illness). We can agree that is not good and we can and should do something to help those people before they snap. Do not apply a band-aide totalitarian government that outlaw words and ideas because they make you feel uncomfortable. It is not for society to ensure your delicate sensibilities never be offended. It is not the responsibility for society to make sure ugly ideas never touch your ears.
"Science can make people feel uncomfortable. Discomfort has a physical response. Science is violence. Ban it. ".
That's you. That's what you sound like.
>Oregon is not arid. Eastern Oregon is a high desert.
Okay. It's not arid but more than half the state is a desert.... For the most part Oregon is a desert because 2/3 of the state is east of the Cascades. If I had said "generally arid" would you have still made that flippant statement?
> all the irrigation availability created by hydroelectric projects.
Oregon is listed in the Newfoundlands Reclamation Act 1902 which I referenced. That irrigation availability and hydroelectric capacity are what I am talking about because when it comes to "irrigation availability" and water usage for "hydroelectric" it is a very contentious issue. Yet, as wikipedia elucidates : "more than 600 of their dams on waterways throughout the West provide irrigation for 10 million acres of farmland, providing 60% of the nation's vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts. ". Oregon is included in those numbers. A recent example of water usage and water rights is for energy storage. Energy hungry states (California ) and companies are trying to gain water rights to use local reservoirs as energy storage. However, if the reservoirs are being drained and filled daily it makes it very hard or very little water left for other water rights holders.
You cant catch your fucking rainwater in a barrel here, to LITTLE regulation?
That is common in the west because water is very very valuable because the west is arid. Water rights have a long and sometimes violent history in the west sprinkled with a lot of corruption. For some perspective check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..." The Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902..
When you capture rain water that is used to fill reservoirs essentially you are taking someone elses water rights who paid for that water.
Ah, true trollery. It's easy to say offensive words. It's art to make others overreact to say them for you.
Now who is more at fault; the one who "winds-up" a thread or the people who overreact? I know it's the troll but there is a reason you don't feed the trolls.
"We must have drama equality. We must come together to fight the 1% so that all our memes be heard. I believe that every memer have a google doodle and that this is a basic internet right. We will no longer allow the 1% to take advantage of the internet at the expense of 99% of internet users. All memes are funny and all memes deserve drama." - Bernie Sanders in the Current Year.
You do know that we know what the perspective was for the Founding Fathers because they told us and wrote it down.
Also, you know that the people against the 3/5ths compromise were slave owners? They wanted slaves to be counted equally so that the slave states would have more power in the newly formed Congress. You know, how every 10 years we have a census that is used to redistribute the number of Representatives each State has in one of the chambers of Congress?
I asked how you wanted me to quantify my statement and then addressed your argument that you brought up.
Your comment said: " owning a gun makes you many times more likely to die by one than not owning one." which is a fallacious statement as demonstrated above and is akin to "getting in an airplane makes you many times more likely to die in a plane crash. Are you going to stop flying now?".
Then you asked "Is there a benefit that offsets "more likely to die"". I gave you a quantification of a benefit of defensive gun uses compared to "gun deaths" and broke down what "gun deaths" amount to and how gun ownership are unrelated to violent crime or suicide which dramatically inflate "gun deaths".
Does 500,000- 3,000,000 defensive gun uses offset the ~30,000 "gun deaths" (which include suicide)? Even if I didn't include those statistics to discredit your fallacious statements and reasoning: "the inalienable right of self defense and the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment supported by historical precedent." very much does support the fact that gun ownership is a good thing. If you need a historical example or if you want a more recent example.
Should I start that even on the low end of 500,000 (to as much as 3 million) instances of defensive gun use dramatically outnumber the 30,000 gun deaths. 2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicide. US is average for suicide so reducing guns does not affect suicide rates. Reducing guns does not reduce violence as seen in many instances of the US and around the world. Guns ownership has increased or been steady in the US yet violent crime has fallen. That doesn't even mention the inalienable right of self defense and the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment supported by historical precedent.
You have an uphill battle to say that gun ownership is in any way shape or form, bad. If you get rid of guns that doesn't end the problems of gang violence or suicide. Yes, getting in an airplane makes you many times more likely to die in a plane crash. Are you going to stop flying now?
Moreso, the second amendment like the fourth and the first ascribed protections to "the" right that per-existed the United States and the revolution. It was well established that all Englishmen of the time had these rights and for hundreds of years as is the case for the right of arms. The inspiration of the second comes from the Bill of Rights of 1689 after a Catholic king took away the arms of protestants to suppress political dissent. The majority opinion from Scalia makes not of this ancestry.
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689).
Because education is a public good [wikipedia.org] that benefits us all. We live in a single country and can cross borders freely so claiming education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic.
That doesn't address the question of how education should be funded and managed. The Department of Education only started in 1980 so the majority of history for the US had education controlled at the State level with varying degrees of success. During that time States were able to to increase attendance, literacy, and was intended to foster creativity without the aide of the federal government. We were a single country that could cross borders freely then so your complete disregard to state/local control is baseless.
Yes, education is a public good but that does not mean that the federal government be involved with it or that the federal government is better than the states.
m8 yer dugs a nazi Count Dankula has been convicted today for that video in Scotland.
Compared to a tweet that said: "I'm f***ed in the head alright. I think I'ma (sic) shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them. "" Followed by "LOL J/K". 2 months after Sandy Hook elementary mass shooting.
I don't know the right answer but the later tweet borders an actual crime ie threat of violence. Bordering a crime about a particular sensitive topic in the US like school shootings after a fairly recent and bad school shooting. Kids say stupid shit absolutely but I think there is an apples oranges comparison going on. Was that a legitimate threat? Probably not. Should the kid have been punished? Probably not. Is that comparable to training a pug to get excited over the phrase "gas the jews" to "piss off your girlfriend" by "making her cute dog into the most uncute thing I could think of. A nazi". I don't think so but I do know that the US, while not perfect, has more protections for speech than most if not all other countries in the world today.
Threats of violence are not protected speech. What is the threshold for that kind of language to be illegal and a legitimate threat? I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
"if we do X it will fail because people will make it fail even if the plan works". - People will make it fail but the plan still works?
"people will vote themselves more, and politicians will sell it to get votes" - works for Bernie Sanders and other Democrats. Are you saying those politicians aren't selling entitlements for votes?
"the government will keep raising taxes" and "rich people will just not pay taxes" - Sanders wants to raise taxes to pay for the entitlements he promises. Isn't that the basis of "more money" that we are talking about? isn't an issue of tax havens and off shore holdings? You are not making any sense. There is evidence for these things.
'Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and succeeded" - That is a little over simplified. The New Deal helped some but it wasn't the quick fix that saved the nation. Part of it was war. There were many reasons for why the US finally got out of the Depression. Simplifying it down to one policy decision is revisionism.
Nordic states, as I mentioned before, subsidize their welfare on oil and other natural resources that are also a homogeneous population a fraction of the size. Are you saying we should burn all our natural resources to pay for welfare? Apples and oranges.
"Constitution claimed to make a "More Perfect Union"?" - Yes an introduction to the codified law. Now what is the codified law belaying that introduction? How do you make "a more perfect union"? The attempt was to give the federal government certain powers and the states the other powers. The states are concerned with the people. The federal government is not as the Constitution does not grant that power to the federal government. You are using the preamble to broaden the law to suit your wants. Why would that not happen for other entitlements?
" I am claiming to be smarter than them" - you are a self aggrandizing fool.
Hold the phone. Basic pessimism? That is your interpretation not my argument. Additionally, what is pessimistic about people voting themselves more money? What rational person would not give themselves a raise if they could?
This has been a huge problem for democracies since their very inception. Even Benjamin Franklin warned; "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.". Why was Franklin wrong and you're right?
You straw-man the issue and dismiss it because you think reality is pessimistic because the lofty dreams of your utopia won't work when put under the auspices of The People.
thoughts are, "don't mess up, don't mess up....."
If those are your thoughts you are going to mess up. Part of doing a good interview is knowing how to relax. The people on the other-side of the table have been the interviewee before they understand people are nervous and likely will be accepting of some level of nervousness. After-all, it isn't (likely) an interview for an actor or public speaker but if you completely fumble because you keep thinking "don't mess up, don't mess up" and come off as a nervous wreck then it seems more likely that is your character and no one wants to work with unstable nervous wrecks. Leave the world at the door. It will be there when you finish
Learn how to give proper interviews. The state labor department should provide some training and mock interviews to help you.
That's ALWAYS a concern.
Sure and if entitlement reform debates in the US has taught me anything is that the only direction those numbers go is up. Anyone even suggesting any way to change those systems are derailed as "elites. hate the poor. in the pocket of the rich" etc. That doesn't look like a system that will be sustainable in anyway because of human nature and our system giving them power to vote. Again, why have less when I can vote for more?
we can amend the Constitution
Actually, if the Constitution was amended to allow the federal government to do the current state of welfare would be a win. As it stands now current federal entitlements are built on the broad and misinterpretation of the general welfare clause. The States are suppose to be concerned with the peoples welfare while the federal government should only be concerned with the general welfare of the states. So we haven't even done the most basic step for the current entitlements why would that be different for an even greater expansion of entitlements?
complain about our needs, and they figure out how to deal with it
Sure, and you miss my point. My needs are more. I voted for you to give me more. Now you figure out how to give me more or else I will vote for someone who will. It isn't the smartest but the one that gives me what I want. Your " tax rate is permanently-fixed and never increases. The benefit increases faster than inflation because of this" is a dream because of that basic simple mindedness that will elect someone willing to give the voter more. You mention Nordic countries who have subsidized their welfare on oil and natural resources. Can they maintain their welfare state without that natural resource subsidy? Burn Fossil Fuels for welfare!
The tax rate is permanently-fixed and never increases.
Until enough people decide they want more and vote in politicians promising them what they want. Why have less when I can vote for more?
you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended.
It is because whenever I read any law trying to define hate speech there is a subjective component.
g thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments.
no because one is a de facto town square. The discussion is whether Facebook is a de jure town square and that they should be stewards of rights just like a phone company can't kick you off the line for being a nazi. Or just like a baker and a gay wedding cake.
racial vilification
There are laws to stop actions. Not words. That is the difference. Please recognize the difference.
I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge
He was convicted for being "grossly offensive" and is awaiting sentencing. His trial lasted longer than the Nuremberg trials. Think about that for a second because that is the fruit of hate speech law and culture. Don't assume I am conflating anything if you do not know the all facts. It is well known enough that a simple search will give you plenty of information.
malice must be shown to be convicted.
Yes there is a high bar. Yes motives matter as does context. You are not saying anything relevant to the underlying point.
offend, insult, humiliate
All subjective. All different for everyone.
So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'?
Because you do not have free speech if you have "hate speech". Offensive speech is the point of protecting speech. If you ban offensive speech you ban any speech. You seem to think we can all hold hands and sing koombaya if only certain words and idea were banned. The entire premise is built on a lack of liberty and a lack of a basic human right. Common law had its faults and had its successes. The philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence and the codified protection in the Constitution are some of the best legal works we can look at. If you want hate speech as law then you much demonstrate why that philosophy and that codified protection is obsolete. I hope you never succeed because the world will be made worse just as the UK is getting worse. Convicted for "grossly offensive" my ass.
I do not understand what appears, to me, to be hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance.
Then you have poor reading comprehension as I stated why. The difference is action. In one case, you must take action to defend yourself and reputation. In the other case, you do not.
I'm arguing that the limitations imposed on the right to free speech by governments with respect to legislation and common law precedent is of the same type and kind as the limitations for other forms of harmful speech.
And I was taking your "words that wound" to its logical conclusion when taken to the context of law. "Crying is a physical response to harm. Words can make people cry. Therefore words cause physical harm and should be banned. ". I don't care what link you provide if the underlying premise is that society should treat adults as children.
Jailing someone because they said something that offended you is not possible under laws relating to defamation and is not possible under laws relating to 'hate speech'
And yet, we are getting to see that this is patently false. It's not just offended. Remember it's "Grossly offensive".
And that conflating this with denial of service for violation of TOS is ignorant at best.
And arguing a point built on faulty assumptions when you don't have all the facts makes you look like an ass.
I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective.
I disagree. The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing. Everyone has different points at which they take offense. Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is. Libel, slander, threats, etc. Have objective definitions that we all can understand and it doesn't require us to subjectively quantify anything like "offense". Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation, may initiate legal investigations, ruin your career, etc. There is nothing subjective about understanding that libelous statement and why it isn't allowed. Compared that to, the Fourteen Words. If you are not white, your reputation isn't damage. The police are not going to start investigating you. Your career won't be ruined. No harm is caused until there is an action to follow. That is the fundamental difference.
that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law
I am not arguing that government is a singular entity of tyranny. I am arguing that government is made of people and people can be tyrannical even in distributed levels of power. The whole point of checks and balances (distributed power) is recognize that humans are flawed creatures and that when given the chance can and will abuse others. Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities. The 2nd, for example, has historical precedent to the 1689 Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean that the right ascribed were correct by being limited to Protestants. Yet, we can understand the forethought of such a right in the context of a different age. If we recognize we are no different than our forefathers than the lessons they learned will help us create a better future just as they left us with a good future. Too often I hear people dismiss history because "they are different". They understand the world better. They can do it right this time. The current infatuation with hate speech is people forgetting history and thinking they are different because of Twitter. Social media does not change human nature. It does not change the conditions for tyranny to win over liberty.
Words that wound
I am not going to respond to all of your post but this really bugs me. Words that wound AKA speech is violence. That is unadulterated bullshit. Sure, they can have an impact. Of course social media can influence an election just like the printing press. But if you, as an adult, cannot overcome mean words then you are no more mature than a child. Censoring anything because "speech is violence" is a childs response. Being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others which includes you getting over mean words and ideas. This line of reasoning amounts to. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Jail him!". It is not appropriate for society to behave as a child to coddle the feelings of every delicate snowflake. Science can offend people therefore science is violence. Should we censor science too?
Douglas Adams
If you don't like the choice of lizards run for office. Stop expecting anyone else to solve your problems when you have the power to do it yourself.
you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole
Yes. Because the law cannot accurately describe subjectivity through which "hate speech" is routinely and only able to be defined properly in the context of law. It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.
If you have subjective limitations on a right then that right is effectively null because it becomes a privilege of the government to take away by its own discretion and interpretation. It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.
You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations
You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime. Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm. Libel, credible threats, defamation, etc. all can damage another persons rights, property, and liberty. It requires a person to respond to defend themselves. Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm. A racist can be a racist that doesn't cause harm to anyone even if they express their racist views. It doesn't require anyone to respond to defend their rights, property, and liberty. Racism requires action to take away the rights, property, and liberty of anyone. That action is already illegal in all circumstances.
all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.
No. You are uninhibitedly free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. Speech has very limited capacity to infringe on rights in and of itself. That limited capacity is where you see those limitations such as libel and credible threats. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are an attempt to protect those inalienable rights that you are born with. They do not come from government and it is the role of government to protect those rights not to take them away because you are subjectively offended.
hey are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots
All of language is a label so that we can properly understand each other. You are blind if you cannot see the philosophical differences of "left" and "right". You and I have a fundamental philosophical different understanding of rights and the role of government and that difference will impact our voting behavior. It may look tribal because in some respects it is. Those plutocrats are elected by people who chose them to be the plutocrat to represent them in the halls of power.
what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult..."
>culture to act like children
For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.
That is rather ablist of you. Particularly so that one explanation for high suicidality in the trans community is because of rude words or as they say "denying their humanity" because of not using preferred pronouns or the mere idea that "there are only 2 genders".
a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes...better concept than the "reasonable person"
It is overly sensitive to anything that is "offensive" to the prevailing culture in power charged with executing the law. The "reasonable person" is sidelined by the police, prosecutor, and judge using vague law to get what they want. I think any "reasonable person" can understand that Count Dankula isn't a secret nazi using his pug to make nazism more palatable to the average person. Yet, that is irrelevant because "grossly offensive" intent be damned. A better concept is to not mess with such dangerous precedents. A better concept is to not use vague law that can be abused with subjectivity.
although I do broadly agree on those points
Yes, I know. That is why I said what I said. Recognizing the existing law applied to a "reasonable person" doesn't address what you already have broadly stated is your position in previous discussions nor does it address the underlying change in culture in regards to speech. "speech is violence" is the new norm through which academics justify censorship. That you defended with "Words literally have a physical affect" and "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech".
Claiming "I was merely explaining the science and the law and not advocating either" is bullshit. You are defending "speech is violence" because "society has an interest in preventing damage through speech" because "words have a physical affect".
You are defending a culture to act like children. I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law. The UK is taking the lead and I can only imagine because there are a lot of people that think like you and mock ,as you say, 'freeze peach'. I am not angry or triggered or w/e for things you say. I am concerned with the culture you advocate.
you were triggered by my username
Some reason when I see your username I think of Mojo Jojo. No particular reason. Not trying to be insulting. He says his name a particular way that I hear when I read your name. Maybe I am triggered and I need to save me from the evil scientist. Wait... Are you a scientist? @_@ God save me.
Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities. You are using a childs response to mean words as an appropriate action for the government. "He called me mean names. I am crying because he called me mean names. (A physical response!) I was violently attacked as evident by my crying. Throw him in jail.". I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.
Treat the underlying condition (bullying, stress, depression, mental illness). We can agree that is not good and we can and should do something to help those people before they snap. Do not apply a band-aide totalitarian government that outlaw words and ideas because they make you feel uncomfortable. It is not for society to ensure your delicate sensibilities never be offended. It is not the responsibility for society to make sure ugly ideas never touch your ears.
"Science can make people feel uncomfortable. Discomfort has a physical response. Science is violence. Ban it. ".
That's you. That's what you sound like.
>Oregon is not arid. Eastern Oregon is a high desert.
Okay. It's not arid but more than half the state is a desert. ... For the most part Oregon is a desert because 2/3 of the state is east of the Cascades. If I had said "generally arid" would you have still made that flippant statement?
> all the irrigation availability created by hydroelectric projects.
Oregon is listed in the Newfoundlands Reclamation Act 1902 which I referenced. That irrigation availability and hydroelectric capacity are what I am talking about because when it comes to "irrigation availability" and water usage for "hydroelectric" it is a very contentious issue. Yet, as wikipedia elucidates : "more than 600 of their dams on waterways throughout the West provide irrigation for 10 million acres of farmland, providing 60% of the nation's vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts. ". Oregon is included in those numbers. A recent example of water usage and water rights is for energy storage. Energy hungry states (California ) and companies are trying to gain water rights to use local reservoirs as energy storage. However, if the reservoirs are being drained and filled daily it makes it very hard or very little water left for other water rights holders.
You typed a lot without saying anything.
Ooops on first link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's just wikipedia.
You cant catch your fucking rainwater in a barrel here, to LITTLE regulation?
That is common in the west because water is very very valuable because the west is arid. Water rights have a long and sometimes violent history in the west sprinkled with a lot of corruption. For some perspective check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..." The Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902..
When you capture rain water that is used to fill reservoirs essentially you are taking someone elses water rights who paid for that water.
'what value is provided'
Bear claws. Try one. They're delicious.
Ah, true trollery. It's easy to say offensive words. It's art to make others overreact to say them for you.
Now who is more at fault; the one who "winds-up" a thread or the people who overreact? I know it's the troll but there is a reason you don't feed the trolls.
"We must have drama equality. We must come together to fight the 1% so that all our memes be heard. I believe that every memer have a google doodle and that this is a basic internet right. We will no longer allow the 1% to take advantage of the internet at the expense of 99% of internet users. All memes are funny and all memes deserve drama." - Bernie Sanders in the Current Year.
Don't let your memes be dreams.
You do know that we know what the perspective was for the Founding Fathers because they told us and wrote it down.
Also, you know that the people against the 3/5ths compromise were slave owners? They wanted slaves to be counted equally so that the slave states would have more power in the newly formed Congress. You know, how every 10 years we have a census that is used to redistribute the number of Representatives each State has in one of the chambers of Congress?
Sheesh. Learn some history scrow.
I asked how you wanted me to quantify my statement and then addressed your argument that you brought up.
Your comment said: " owning a gun makes you many times more likely to die by one than not owning one." which is a fallacious statement as demonstrated above and is akin to "getting in an airplane makes you many times more likely to die in a plane crash. Are you going to stop flying now?".
Then you asked "Is there a benefit that offsets "more likely to die"". I gave you a quantification of a benefit of defensive gun uses compared to "gun deaths" and broke down what "gun deaths" amount to and how gun ownership are unrelated to violent crime or suicide which dramatically inflate "gun deaths".
Does 500,000- 3,000,000 defensive gun uses offset the ~30,000 "gun deaths" (which include suicide)? Even if I didn't include those statistics to discredit your fallacious statements and reasoning: "the inalienable right of self defense and the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment supported by historical precedent." very much does support the fact that gun ownership is a good thing. If you need a historical example or if you want a more recent example.
How do you want me to quantify that?
Should I start that even on the low end of 500,000 (to as much as 3 million) instances of defensive gun use dramatically outnumber the 30,000 gun deaths.
2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicide. US is average for suicide so reducing guns does not affect suicide rates.
Reducing guns does not reduce violence as seen in many instances of the US and around the world.
Guns ownership has increased or been steady in the US yet violent crime has fallen.
That doesn't even mention the inalienable right of self defense and the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment supported by historical precedent.
You have an uphill battle to say that gun ownership is in any way shape or form, bad. If you get rid of guns that doesn't end the problems of gang violence or suicide. Yes, getting in an airplane makes you many times more likely to die in a plane crash. Are you going to stop flying now?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://crimeresearch.org/2013...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nah, they're just trademarked.
Moreso, the second amendment like the fourth and the first ascribed protections to "the" right that per-existed the United States and the revolution. It was well established that all Englishmen of the time had these rights and for hundreds of years as is the case for the right of arms. The inspiration of the second comes from the Bill of Rights of 1689 after a Catholic king took away the arms of protestants to suppress political dissent. The majority opinion from Scalia makes not of this ancestry.
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...
Gun ownership is a good thing.
The NRA is only relevant because of shit like what Youtube is doing; attacking reasonable people for no good reason.
Normalizing censorship is a lot worse than normalizing gun ownership. YouTube and the UK are doing more harm than any gun video.
Because education is a public good [wikipedia.org] that benefits us all. We live in a single country and can cross borders freely so claiming education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic.
That doesn't address the question of how education should be funded and managed. The Department of Education only started in 1980 so the majority of history for the US had education controlled at the State level with varying degrees of success. During that time States were able to to increase attendance, literacy, and was intended to foster creativity without the aide of the federal government. We were a single country that could cross borders freely then so your complete disregard to state/local control is baseless.
Yes, education is a public good but that does not mean that the federal government be involved with it or that the federal government is better than the states.
Let's just make sure we are all on the same page.
m8 yer dugs a nazi Count Dankula has been convicted today for that video in Scotland.
Compared to a tweet that said: "I'm f***ed in the head alright. I think I'ma (sic) shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them. "" Followed by "LOL J/K". 2 months after Sandy Hook elementary mass shooting.
I don't know the right answer but the later tweet borders an actual crime ie threat of violence. Bordering a crime about a particular sensitive topic in the US like school shootings after a fairly recent and bad school shooting. Kids say stupid shit absolutely but I think there is an apples oranges comparison going on. Was that a legitimate threat? Probably not. Should the kid have been punished? Probably not. Is that comparable to training a pug to get excited over the phrase "gas the jews" to "piss off your girlfriend" by "making her cute dog into the most uncute thing I could think of. A nazi". I don't think so but I do know that the US, while not perfect, has more protections for speech than most if not all other countries in the world today.
Threats of violence are not protected speech. What is the threshold for that kind of language to be illegal and a legitimate threat? I don't know.