Do we need an Intolerant Jackass Act?

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Why do I get the feeling that Infected Mushrooms is somehow behind the OP? Because that would explain the OP's need for hypersensitivity.

Have systems like this worked in other countries? Perhaps (with varying levels of success). Would it work in a country like the United States? Doubtful, especially since the pro-free speech crowd would not tolerate something on this level (somewhat ironically)

On the topic of tolerance, why do some people want to suppress certain areas of free speech? The same people who preach tolerance seem to be intolerant to those who have a different opinion. Just because someone's a jackass, doesn't give you the right to propose a "ban all jackasses because mah feelings" law. That makes you a jackass, then.

[Liriena]

On the topic of tolerance, why do some people want to suppress certain areas of free speech? The same people who preach tolerance seem to be intolerant to those who have a different opinion. Just because someone's a jackass, doesn't give you the right to propose a "ban all jackasses because mah feelings" law. That makes you a jackass, then.

I personally do not advocate for banning any and every sort of anti-LGBT+ speech. People do have the right to express an opinion contrary to my own.

What I do advocate for is keeping hate speech in check. By hate speech I don't mean the occasional homophobic slur or some transphobic pseudo-scientific op-ed in some obscure news site. By hate speech I mean people inciting violence against a specific group, including calls for a genocide against LGBT+ people. That sort of speech should not be allowed to spread undeterred, since it poses a real threat to public safety, and can lead to gross human rights violations.

With that said... Your use of the "intolerant of the intolerant" cliché made me cringe.

[Daburuetchi]

Why do I get the feeling that Infected Mushrooms is somehow behind the OP? Because that would explain the OP's need for hypersensitivity.

Have systems like this worked in other countries? Perhaps (with varying levels of success). Would it work in a country like the United States? Doubtful, especially since the pro-free speech crowd would not tolerate something on this level (somewhat ironically)

On the topic of tolerance, why do some people want to suppress certain areas of free speech? The same people who preach tolerance seem to be intolerant to those who have a different opinion. Just because someone's a jackass, doesn't give you the right to propose a "ban all jackasses because mah feelings" law. That makes you a jackass, then.

I don't see how I warrant those pointless ad hominems. This is not a bourgeois liberal obsession with matters of minimum political importance like whether Barbie dolls create impossible standards for little girls. This is concerning virulent hate speech which can and had lead to horrible events like the genocide in Rwanda. Will hate speech lead to a similar feud in the US? Probably not. In Euorpe I could seeing how far right parties are gaining popularity. But when 73% of US citizens can't correctly state why they fought the Cold War I doubt they can be feasible educated enough not to follow virulent demagogues.

[Daburuetchi]

The Sodomite Suppression Act and Intolerant Jackass Act are both unconstitutional, and I am not seeing the need to amend the constitution just because some people had a spat about gay rights.

Again this has less to do with those acts and more to do with combating hate speech in general. Something I quite clearly stated.

[Daburuetchi]

I love it that the "Land of Freedom" is trying to make Hitler look like a moderate.

Good job 'Murica, just execute them evil whities and have black and female rule everywhere, DEATH TO CIVILISATION!

We already don't have the freedom to deny people services based on race. I don't see how curtailing the most virulent form of hate speech would be such a massive steep or result in a black matriarchy

[Daburuetchi]

Good for a laugh but stupid. Who would pay for this? If the government is paying for the class then hell no.[My Tax money can go somewhere else thank you.] However on the other hand I don't like the idea of forcefully taking some ones money for classes as well as donating to a pro gay group.

They could perform community service or some other function rather than a financial penalty. Your tax money is already going toward tanks the army doesn't need and subsidies for mega corporations. I don't see how spending some on improving the general welfare of society is so egregious

[Daburuetchi]

As for the initial genocidical part, that's reasonable. We cannot just go around killing people
As for the second, gay marriage part:

(Image)

People kill themselves as a result of experiencing hate speech. I wouldn't call these individuals pansies who just need to suck up being bullied everyday. But moreover I specifically stated that the act would not encompass minor things like opposition to gay marriage.

[North Dragoria]

Lefties like OP always make me laugh

[Daburuetchi]

Lefties like OP always make me laugh

Not sure if being concerned about the consequences of hate speech is a proposition that warrants derision

[Daburuetchi]

As much as I would love this..... no. Not only do we NOT need it, but we CAN'T and SHOULDN'T have it.

1) The US has a Constitution. That means trans/gay/lesbian bashers get to talk. Sad but true.

2) What define's hate speech? If the wrong people get control of government, hate speech could mean literally anything, and even normal, decent people could be "Intolerant Jackasses.

Incitement of genocide or harm toward another ethnic group or toward a person based on their ethnicity is a pretty simple standard ypthat could be used. The Civil Right Act of 1964 uses a smiling one to prevent discrimination

[Pope Joan]

We already have laws to punish the publication of imminent harm to a named individual or particular identified group. We can use our usual instruments, police, prosecutors, courts.

If whatever is going on does not rise to that level, then it is protected speech.

One problem with making laws to punish people we don't like is that there is a tendency for these laws to be used against relatively harmless people. Rape and sexual assault laws are used against "Romeo and Juliet" underage lovers. Antiracketeering laws are used against businesspeople who are bad bookkeepers. Anti corruption laws are used to convict a legislator of taking a bribe, when all that happened was that undercover officers ran a sting operation and placed money on his desk while he did not solicit the "bribe" or do anything to show he accepted it. Even though he himself notified the authorities, he was arrested and brought to trial.

Beware! Laws can and will be used against you.

[Uxupox]

I've always liked violating the first amendment. As long as people don't violate other's right of existence well I have no problem with their right to talk.

[Daburuetchi]

We already have laws to punish the publication of imminent harm to a named individual or particular identified group. We can use our usual instruments, police, prosecutors, courts.

If whatever is going on does not rise to that level, then it is protected speech.

One problem with making laws to punish people we don't like is that there is a tendency for these laws to be used against relatively harmless people. Rape and sexual assault laws are used against "Romeo and Juliet" underage lovers. Antiracketeering laws are used against businesspeople who are bad bookkeepers. Anti corruption laws are used to convict a legislator of taking a bribe, when all that happened was that undercover officers ran a sting operation and placed money on his desk while he did not solicit the "bribe" or do anything to show he accepted it. Even though he himself notified the authorities, he was arrested and brought to trial.

Beware! Laws can and will be used against you.

Many European Countries and several Latin American ones have laws that criminalize hate speech and yet i have not come across any egregious examples of these laws being used to consolidate the power of some sinister elite minority or as a means of extortion. Laws will be abused in some capacity no matter what but that does not justifying them not being passed if they benefit the general welfare of society. Individuals who go about trying to incite other to harm or marginalize another person solely on the basis on ethnicity, sex etc is largely intolerable to civilized society and actually threaten to drag us all into the dark ages should they gain any real traction as they are in Europe.

Fighting words, threats and denying service based on race are already banned. I dont see how criminalizing public incitements of violence against another group would be so much of a stretch

[New confederate ramenia]

It's not violence, it's a proposition in a democracy.

It's sad that I need to ask, but do you know what the word "incitement" means?

Yes, and this isn't it.

[Australian rePublic]

As for the initial genocidical part, that's reasonable. We cannot just go around killing people
As for the second, gay marriage part:

(Image)

People kill themselves as a result of experiencing hate speech. I wouldn't call these individuals pansies who just need to suck up being bullied everyday. But moreover I specifically stated that the act would not encompass minor things like opposition to gay marriage.

Yes I know that. I used to be extremely bullied at school, despite going to a school that is strict on bullying. I have studied bullying as a concept, in particular, cyber bullying. However, there is a differnece between saying "kill all fags, kill all fags" and "I don't agree that (insert nation) should implement same sex marriage". Your post specifically stated that after some point in time, this jackass law should be taken THAT far

[Anollasia]

Yes, but also proper education.

[Daburuetchi]

People kill themselves as a result of experiencing hate speech. I wouldn't call these individuals pansies who just need to suck up being bullied everyday. But moreover I specifically stated that the act would not encompass minor things like opposition to gay marriage.

Yes I know that. I used to be extremely bullied at school, despite going to a school that is strict on bullying. I have studied bullying as a concept, in particular, cyber bullying. However, there is a differnece between saying "kill all fags, kill all fags" and "I don't agree that (insert nation) should implement same sex marriage". Your post specifically stated that after some point in time, this jackass law should be taken THAT far

I believe marriage should be abolished in general but assuming it still persist it is indeed pretty intolerant to treat gays as subhuman freaks not as worthy as heterosexuals to participate in a pointless property relationship. The only argument advanced against gay marriage [as a legal entity] usually pertain to some disposed bullshit about family values so yes this is pretty blatant desicrimiantion which should be encompassed since you're dying people a public service based on something they can't control

[Jochistan]

Look. When you ban something like an ideology. It becomes mystical, almost. Some lost cause people can Identify with.
freedom to practice hate speech has made these kind of extreme ideologies such as extreme, extreme homophobia like this, fringe ideologies. people realize how crazy they are once they're allowed, so it seems. Same with National Socialism. It's fringe because it's allowed.

[Jochistan]

No. Things like this breed hypersensitivity, which is just as annoying.

Thank you!

Once you ban one ideology (even if it is a fringe one). what's to stop you from finding monsters where there are none? Banning everything one doesn't agree with?

[Jochistan]

I love it that the "Land of Freedom" is trying to make Hitler look like a moderate.

Good job 'Murica, just execute them evil whities and have black and female rule everywhere, DEATH TO CIVILISATION!

I doubt that's actually going to happen.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I love it that the "Land of Freedom" is trying to make Hitler look like a moderate.

Good job 'Murica, just execute them evil whities and have black and female rule everywhere, DEATH TO CIVILISATION!

I doubt that's actually going to happen.

That's a fairly moderated response to the proposition that blacks and women are the downfall of civilization.

[The Lacedaemonians]

That's a fairly moderated response to the proposition that blacks and women are the downfall of civilization.

It is difficult for reason to exist alongside passion. The response was appropriate.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

That's a fairly moderated response to the proposition that blacks and women are the downfall of civilization.

It is difficult for reason to exist alongside passion. The response was appropriate.

Reason can precede passion and all is well. Rational thought can very well lead to heightened emotion and excitement, and indeed, is necessary in certain cases. Only those who jump off the edge and blaze trails make differences in society, not the cautious man tip-toeing around the feelings of others.



get that stoicism outta here

[Jochistan]

I doubt that's actually going to happen.

That's a fairly moderated response to the proposition that blacks and women are the downfall of civilization.

Well, I would get banned for speaking what I wanted to say.

[Jochistan]

It is difficult for reason to exist alongside passion. The response was appropriate.

Reason can precede passion and all is well. Rational thought can very well lead to heightened emotion and excitement, and indeed, is necessary in certain cases. Only those who jump off the edge and blaze trails make differences in society, not the cautious man tip-toeing around the feelings of others.

Yeah, sometimes. But sometimes those people just end up as just another guy on a soapbox. Like Rush Limbaugh.