Not a good analogy though, as losing a court case for tree cutting would only cost you money. Losing a court case for hate speech is more a criminal act and would result in jail time.
'White genocide in space': Racist "fans" seething at racial diversity in Discovery...
- Thread starter Trajet
- Start date
- Status
So innocent people don't go to prison already? Are you that naive? If you're problem is that innocent people may go to prison for a crime they didn't commit we're going to have to get rid of every single criminal law.
No, it'm not naive. I'm also not naive enough to believe that such application of a hate speech law would not be used to censor folks just for disagreement.
What disagreement? That certain people don't deserve to live? Because that's the one I'm taking about. Advocating for genocide seems like a deal breaker for most I'd guess.
I think it's easy to equate statements in opposition to a group or class of people's beliefs as they don't want us to have freedoms, or they don't see a reason for us to live.
My disagreement is in application of hate speech laws and it's use to shut down others speech -- even if I find it distasteful or I disagree with it.
But I've seen people who say things like, "I respect people's right to live as they chose, however I believe marriage is between one man and one women," labelled as homophobic, bigots. So according to what I've seen, even respectful disagreement can be grounds for being accused of hate speech.
Yet that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about advocating genocide or murder against a group of people, like in the article I posted earlier.
Exactly my point. Thank you.
Usually because they take the next step of trying to keep them from getting married. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. You don't get to force your beliefs on others. And just to get this out of the way, gay marriage existing is not forcing it on others.
Reasonable people see such talk as what it is, crazy. I don't believe we as a society are on the verge of turning a blind eye towards genocide or murder. Such people truly are on the fringe of society, but that's been said in this thread already.
Until they actually start murdering people in large enough numbers of course. All genocides happen after a long period of hate speech, it not like it happens in a vacuum as if some spell takes over a country. It could happen in the US, it could happen anywhere.
Yes but isn't that presuming a motive. What if the person simply doesn't personally accept gay marriages as valid. But That doesn't matter now becasue they've been accused of hate speech.
I guess this is the distinction I draw: You can hate people all you want, but you can't advocate crime. There is a difference between "Anyone in their right mind would shoot transgender person." and "I hate the guts of transgender people, they are disgusting."
Both of these would get labelled as hate speech, but only one of them actually promotes criminal activity.
Even "I hate the guts of transgender people, they are disgusting, we need to change the laws to make it legal to shoot them." I would not consider criminal, becasue it is not advocating a crime. I would also hope people would see the idiocy of that position and outright reject it.
Then they will bear the punishment of the crimes they committed.
Last edited:
I do not concede the argument, I have just grown tired of it. I agree to disagree (without prejudice toward any group).
Part of getting along in society has to be based on the premise that people should stay out of other peoples' private lives.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't be in one. It's pretty simple. If you don't like gay people, don't invite them over for tea. Again, it's easy.
If you don't want to allow gay patrons into your store, tough cookie, you don't deserve a license to do business. Gay peoples' dollars are worth just as much as the dollars of your straight customers, and gay people pay taxes that support your business, just like straight people do. If you want to force your morality on other people, get lost, gay people have the same rights that you do.
See, it really isn't hard to get.
That's a bizarre distinction. Do you think antisemitism began with advocating criminal activity? Antilocution is the first stage on the spectrum of hatred, it creates an other which it's ok to hate, ok to dehumanise and take rights away from, ok to segregate, and ultimately more and more ok to physically hurt. The hate speech adjusts, by its nature, what is criminal. If you don't see how rhetorical hatred leads inexorably to violent hatred, I don't think I can trust your assessment that people will simply ignore this speech like it's a restaurant they don't like.
I'm not saying there is no connection. I'm just saying we shouldn't base our legal system on a slippery slope argument.
CorporalCaptain Thanks for the double negative catch.
No problem.
I never said it was hate speech. It is bigoted and hateful though. But if you don't like gay marriage then don't get married to a member of the same sex, it's pretty simple.
They don't stop at calling transgender people disgusting, they start stripping them of their rights. If you don't like trans people, then avoid them. They have no right to strip them of their rights and try to banish them from public view so they don't have to see them. Would we tolerate racists passing laws to prevent black people from using public facilities because they're offended by them? No reasonable person would. Yet we're fine with LGBTQ people being treated this way.
Yet they don't. Millions are fine with denying trans people their rights.
Will it make you feel better that millions died to protect a bigot's right to scream out genocide?
Nasty thoughts => Nasty words => Physical violence.
Speaking for myself, we're screwed if they every figure out telepathy
Speaking for myself, we're screwed if they every figure out telepathy
No disrespect intended but could you please explain to me how this is not a contradiction. Because from what I understand the emotion behind the speech is what qualifies it as a type of speech. Hateful speech = Hate speech.
I completely agree.
That is why our government should not be a democracy. Because if it was then once the people had a majority they could do whatever they want. It's supposed to be a Constitutional Republic Which represents people, but has laws in place to protect the minority if they majority tried to deny them their rights.
though practically speaking almost all governments tend to be oligarchies and plutocracies, where a limited group of wealthy people are able to make and enforce whatever laws they wish. Though eventually the oppressed populous becomes tired of the oppression, overthrows the government and creates a new one with the leaders of the rebellion in the seats of power previously occupied by the old leaders. Did we learn nothing from The Hunger Games?
As I stated thought I made clear before screaming for genocide would cross the line for me as it would be advocating a crime.
- Status