Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Banning hate speech is a small limitation of freedom of speech to avoid bigger limitations of other, more tangible, freedoms. Because speech informs opinion and opinion informs action, and words have consequences. I am fine with censoring people who have nothing to add to the discussion than their hatred or bile.

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Two can play this game.

[Galloism]

Who gets to decide what is hateful and what is misinformation, though?

I mean, clearly scientists should be able to weigh in on the latter, and we all should weigh in on the former, but there are people who think that pointing out men are victims of domestic violence is hate speech, or that pointing out logical inconsistencies by prominent movement figures is hate speech.

Misinformation would be decided by scientists and educators who know better.

Which ones? Not all scientists, agree, you know. For instance, there's at least a handful of scientists who think talking about Climate Change is a misinformation campaign.

Not many, but some.

Hate speech would have staunch definition as extreme racist speech, extreme sexist speech (both for men and women, feminazi or otherwise), extreme homophobic / transphobic speech, etc.

Basically, any speech that is defined as extreme (advocating for harm on those people or advocating removal of rights, etc.; does not include saying a somewhat racist word and such in public, because that can usually be ignored) and hateful (obviously, as I have defined 'hate' earlier) would be banned.

So saying men can be victims of domestic violence is hate speech, at least by some definitions, because it's viewed as extreme sexist speech by a significant segment of the population.

There's no way this could go wrong.

[Raszezsar]

As for the bus, good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread misinformation and freedom to hate.

As far as I'm concerned, ban all anti-LGBT buses and messages as hate speech and / or as fraudulent information if they are informing contrary to what is accepted as fact.

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

If you are in favor of criminalizing defamation, you wouldn't be opposed to this. In a way this'd be worse than defamation, seeing how instead of just one person, in this instance a whole group is thrown under the bus, pun very much intended. Cry free speech all you want, but for example, I'd be for holding the media accountable for spreading misinformation without the impotent squeak of the free market fixing it in my dreams. If the media were held to a higher standard and punished for false information, they'd think twice before publishing the hit pieces they publish.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Actually that freedom does apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Where all in the Constitution does it specify that the freedom of speech includes the ability to be hateful and spread misinformation? Nowhere? Thought so.

>inb4 fires back with 'it doesn't say anything against it, either'

That needs to be amended, then, so that hate speech and misinformation aren't allowed.

The First Amendment is where it does. SCOTUS has ruled that burning crosses, flying Nazi flags and all other sorts of things are protected under free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church for example has had their activities defended by SCOTUS on the grounds of freedom of speech in a 8-1 decision. In freedom land you can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't promote imminent violence. No that doesn't need to be amended away.

[Uxupox]

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

Not what I said but okay.

Actually that freedom does apply to being hateful and spreading misinformation.

Where all in the Constitution does it specify that the freedom of speech includes the ability to be hateful and spread misinformation? Nowhere? Thought so.

>inb4 fires back with 'it doesn't say anything against it, either'

That needs to be amended, then, so that hate speech and misinformation aren't allowed.

Who gets to decide what is hateful and what is misinformation, though?

I mean, clearly scientists should be able to weigh in on the latter, and we all should weigh in on the former, but there are people who think that pointing out men are victims of domestic violence is hate speech, or that pointing out logical inconsistencies by prominent movement figures is hate speech.

Misinformation would be decided by scientists and educators who know better. Hate speech would have staunch definition as extreme racist speech, extreme sexist speech (both for men and women, feminazi or otherwise), extreme homophobic / transphobic speech, etc.

Basically, any speech that is defined as extreme (advocating for harm on those people or advocating removal of rights, etc.; does not include saying a somewhat racist word and such in public, because that can usually be ignored) and hateful (obviously, as I have defined 'hate' earlier) would be banned.

Not what you said but you did imply banning does that you disagree with.

The scientifical community is not a hivemind. Disagreements over what is true and its meaning exist. Particularly in microbiology unto where some microbiologiats and by extension oyher biologiats disagree on what exactly composes of life.

[The V O I D]

Misinformation would be decided by scientists and educators who know better.

1. Which ones? Not all scientists, agree, you know. For instance, there's at least a handful of scientists who think talking about Climate Change is a misinformation campaign.

Not many, but some.

Hate speech would have staunch definition as extreme racist speech, extreme sexist speech (both for men and women, feminazi or otherwise), extreme homophobic / transphobic speech, etc.

Basically, any speech that is defined as extreme (advocating for harm on those people or advocating removal of rights, etc.; does not include saying a somewhat racist word and such in public, because that can usually be ignored) and hateful (obviously, as I have defined 'hate' earlier) would be banned.

2. So saying men can be victims of domestic violence is hate speech, at least by some definitions, because it's viewed as extreme sexist speech by a significant segment of the population.

There's no way this could go wrong.

1. We follow with the majority of scientists, if that majority has the evidence backing their claims (e.g. for climate change, evolution, etc.)

2. No. That's not how it works. Domestic violence claims should and would ideally be investigated thoroughly, regardless of who the victim is - husband or wife or whatever else. If there is evidence of abuse, arrest the abuser. If there isn't, to be safe, put the victim into temporary protective custody until a restraining order can be filed and such if the victim so wishes to have one filed. This way, regardless of if it's true or not, the claimed victim is safe and the claimed abuser can't harm them.

Hate speech wouldn't even bother with domestic violence claims and such. It is only for blatantly extreme sexist speech (i.e. "Women all should return to the days of being in the kitchen, not voting, not having a job and not meddling in politics at any level", or "women shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies!" gets a fine, or arrest if the person is trying to start a riot) and other such things that hate speech laws should apply.

[Uxupox]

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

If you are in favor of criminalizing defamation, you wouldn't be opposed to this. In a way this'd be worse than defamation, seeing how instead of just one person, in this instance a whole group is thrown under the bus, pun very much intended. Cry free speech all you want, but for example, I'd be for holding the media accountable for spreading misinformation without the impotent squeak of the free market fixing it in my dreams. If the media were held to a higher standard and punished for false information, they'd think twice before publishing the hit pieces they publish.

If the media wants to publish their own news stories then that's their prerogative even if it means they are spreading false information because ultimately that is their decision.

[The V O I D]

Where all in the Constitution does it specify that the freedom of speech includes the ability to be hateful and spread misinformation? Nowhere? Thought so.

>inb4 fires back with 'it doesn't say anything against it, either'

That needs to be amended, then, so that hate speech and misinformation aren't allowed.

The First Amendment is where it does. SCOTUS has ruled that burning crosses, flying Nazi flags and all other sorts of things are protected under free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church for example has had their activities defended by SCOTUS on the grounds of freedom of speech in a 8-1 decision. In freedom land you can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't promote imminent violence. No that doesn't need to be amended away.

Hate speech and misinformation usually implies violence or harm to the group of people it is targeting, and usually promotes doing so imminently. Or it implies, in the case of misinformation, the general harm of the populace by virtue of trying to uneducate them.

And yes, it does need to be amended away. Neo-Nazi groups, the WBC, etc. should be shut down and either fined or locked up for their hate speech and such. These groups incite violence indirectly towards the groups they target just with their speech, believe it or not. And some neo-Nazi groups are basically domestic terrorists (not all, but some), so shutting them down completely would be upholding the law anyways.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The First Amendment is where it does. SCOTUS has ruled that burning crosses, flying Nazi flags and all other sorts of things are protected under free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church for example has had their activities defended by SCOTUS on the grounds of freedom of speech in a 8-1 decision. In freedom land you can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't doesn't promote imminent violence. No that doesn't need to be amended away.

Hate speech and misinformation usually implies violence or harm to the group of people it is targeting, and usually promotes doing so imminently. Or it implies, in the case of misinformation, the general harm of the populace by virtue of trying to uneducate them.

And yes, it does need to be amended away. Neo-Nazi groups, the WBC, etc. should be shut down and either fined or locked up for their hate speech and such. These groups incite violence indirectly towards the groups they target just with their speech, believe it or not. And some neo-Nazi groups are basically domestic terrorists (not all, but some), so shutting them down completely would be upholding the law anyways.

Sorry. I don't see the need to shit all over the 1A for this.

[Uxupox]

Let us ban all things that I dislike. Make it punishable by execution by firing squad for the crime of anti-revolution.

If you are in favor of criminalizing defamation, you wouldn't be opposed to this. In a way this'd be worse than defamation, seeing how instead of just one person, in this instance a whole group is thrown under the bus, pun very much intended. Cry free speech all you want, but for example, I'd be for holding the media accountable for spreading misinformation without the impotent squeak of the free market fixing it in my dreams. If the media were held to a higher standard and punished for false information, they'd think twice before publishing the hit pieces they publish.

If the media wants to publish their own news stories then that's their prerogative even if it means they are spreading false information because ultimately that is their decision.

[The V O I D]

Hate speech and misinformation usually implies violence or harm to the group of people it is targeting, and usually promotes doing so imminently. Or it implies, in the case of misinformation, the general harm of the populace by virtue of trying to uneducate them.

And yes, it does need to be amended away. Neo-Nazi groups, the WBC, etc. should be shut down and either fined or locked up for their hate speech and such. These groups incite violence indirectly towards the groups they target just with their speech, believe it or not. And some neo-Nazi groups are basically domestic terrorists (not all, but some), so shutting them down completely would be upholding the law anyways.

Sorry. I don't see the need to shit all over the 1A for this.

If protecting the rights of others, protecting factual information and protecting people from violence of any kind being incited by idiots and nutjobs involves the need to "shit all over the first amendment", then yeah, sorry, it does.

No one is saying you can't believe what you want. We're just saying that if it is contradictory to fact, or is malicious in nature, don't bother depositing that into society - society has no need for malicious speech and anti-facts.

[Arcturus Novus]

Banning hate speech is a small limitation of freedom of speech to avoid bigger limitations of other, more tangible, freedoms. Because speech informs opinion and opinion informs action, and words have consequences. I am fine with censoring people who have nothing to add to the discussion than their hatred or bile.

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

How does "not wanting to see vitriolic statements posted in public" equate to Nazism?

[The V O I D]

So you support the suppression of people you don't agree with? You know who else supported the suppression of political opponents?
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Just saying.

How does "not wanting to see vitriolic statements posted in public" equate to Nazism?

Because 'muh freedumb to be wrong and encourage other people to believe my wrongness and attack those I view as bad and gross and their freedoms'.

[Uxupox]

Sorry. I don't see the need to shit all over the 1A for this.

If protecting the rights of others, protecting factual information and protecting people from violence of any kind being incited by idiots and nutjobs involves the need to "shit all over the first amendment", then yeah, sorry, it does.

No one is saying you can't believe what you want. We're just saying that if it is contradictory to fact, or is malicious in nature, don't bother depositing that into society - society has no need for malicious speech and anti-facts.

You are not protecting anybody's right but you in fact are shitting over everybody's rights.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sorry. I don't see the need to shit all over the 1A for this.

If protecting the rights of others, protecting factual information and protecting people from violence of any kind being incited by idiots and nutjobs involves the need to "shit all over the first amendment", then yeah, sorry, it does.

No one is saying you can't believe what you want. We're just saying that if it is contradictory to fact, or is malicious in nature, don't bother depositing that into society - society has no need for malicious speech and anti-facts.

And I'm saying that's a very small distance away from authoritarianism and just shutting down the opposition and should be opposed by any and all means possible. People should be free to say whatever kind of vile or false shit they want, you aren't protecting anyone by censoring people and shitting on freedoms.

[The V O I D]

If protecting the rights of others, protecting factual information and protecting people from violence of any kind being incited by idiots and nutjobs involves the need to "shit all over the first amendment", then yeah, sorry, it does.

No one is saying you can't believe what you want. We're just saying that if it is contradictory to fact, or is malicious in nature, don't bother depositing that into society - society has no need for malicious speech and anti-facts.

You are not protecting anybody's right but you in fact are shitting over everybody's rights.

>literally wanting to make sure LGBT people aren't discriminated against or attacked because of misinformation
>literally wanting to make misinformation impossible
>somehow not protecting anyone's rights or anyone and making sure everyone suffers

ye sure gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8.

[Uxupox]

You are not protecting anybody's right but you in fact are shitting over everybody's rights.

>literally wanting to make sure LGBT people aren't discriminated against or attacked because of misinformation
>literally wanting to make misinformation impossible
>somehow not protecting anyone's rights or anyone and making sure everyone suffers

ye sure gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8.

Yes yes because they got attacked ran over by a bus. O wait no they disn't but you'd make Pinochet proud with your allegations.

[The V O I D]

If protecting the rights of others, protecting factual information and protecting people from violence of any kind being incited by idiots and nutjobs involves the need to "shit all over the first amendment", then yeah, sorry, it does.

No one is saying you can't believe what you want. We're just saying that if it is contradictory to fact, or is malicious in nature, don't bother depositing that into society - society has no need for malicious speech and anti-facts.

And I'm saying that's a very small distance away from authoritarianism and just shutting down the opposition and should be opposed by any and all means possible. People should be free to say whatever kind of vile or false shit they want, you aren't protecting anyone by censoring people and shitting on freedoms.

I am protecting people. Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean somehow I want to violate anyone's "freedumb to b dumb" and nothing else.

It isn't authoritarianism, either. It's just blocking out the anti-facts and the hate. Neither of those things are needed to allow society to function. In fact, quite the opposite, really.

[Raszezsar]

If you are in favor of criminalizing defamation, you wouldn't be opposed to this. In a way this'd be worse than defamation, seeing how instead of just one person, in this instance a whole group is thrown under the bus, pun very much intended. Cry free speech all you want, but for example, I'd be for holding the media accountable for spreading misinformation without the impotent squeak of the free market fixing it in my dreams. If the media were held to a higher standard and punished for false information, they'd think twice before publishing the hit pieces they publish.

If the media wants to publish their own news stories then that's their prerogative even if it means they are spreading false information because ultimately that is their decision.

And as I'm sure you knew already, decisions have consequences. We don't let just any kind of shit fly in the scientific community for the sake of freezepeach. Why the media, then, with it being an even stronger influence on people than science and its findings? I would rather have Buzzfeed wiped from the face of the Earth than have it fueling the false narratives about certain groups any longer. Facts are not opinions.

[The V O I D]

>literally wanting to make sure LGBT people aren't discriminated against or attacked because of misinformation
>literally wanting to make misinformation impossible
>somehow not protecting anyone's rights or anyone and making sure everyone suffers

ye sure gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8.

Yes yes because they got attacked ran over by a bus. O wait no they disn't but you'd make Pinochet proud with your allegations.

Clearly, you aren't understanding the implications of what I've been saying, and aren't reading my arguments properly.

If you were, you'd understand what I'm saying instead of misconstruing it so badly that I wonder if reading comprehension exists.

[Uxupox]

Yes yes because they got attacked ran over by a bus. O wait no they disn't but you'd make Pinochet proud with your allegations.

Clearly, you aren't understanding the implications of what I've been saying, and aren't reading my arguments properly.

If you were, you'd understand what I'm saying instead of misconstruing it so badly that I wonder if reading comprehension exists.

Nah, your arguments are filled with authoritarian spinzel that is completely unsavory in the United States.

[Uxupox]

If the media wants to publish their own news stories then that's their prerogative even if it means they are spreading false information because ultimately that is their decision.

And as I'm sure you knew already, decisions have consequences. We don't let just any kind of shit fly in the scientific community for the sake of freezepeach. Why the media, then, with it being an even stronger influence on people than science and its findings? I would rather have Buzzfeed wiped from the face of the Earth than have it fueling the false narratives about certain groups any longer. Facts are not opinions.

Yes that is true in scientific community but indicidual right is not a scientific field.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And I'm saying that's a very small distance away from authoritarianism and just shutting down the opposition and should be opposed by any and all means possible. People should be free to say whatever kind of vile or false shit they want, you aren't protecting anyone by censoring people and shitting on freedoms.

I am protecting people. Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean somehow I want to violate anyone's "freedumb to b dumb" and nothing else.

It isn't authoritarianism, either. It's just blocking out the anti-facts and the hate. Neither of those things are needed to allow society to function. In fact, quite the opposite, really.

No. No you aren't. You aren't protecting anybody. What you'd be doing is wasting time and money trying to amend the constitution to shit on freedom of speech because of the deluded goal that it will somehow end discrimination and misinformation. People would still be just as discriminatory as before and if you think you can stop the spread of misinformation in the Internet age you're just out of touch with reality.

[The V O I D]

Clearly, you aren't understanding the implications of what I've been saying, and aren't reading my arguments properly.

If you were, you'd understand what I'm saying instead of misconstruing it so badly that I wonder if reading comprehension exists.

Nah, your arguments are filled with authoritarian spinzel that is completely unsavory in the United States.

Wew, lad.

Why should I bother continuing this debate with you, anyway, when it seems obvious you're just dedicating yourself to calling everyone in support of this authoritarian and 'against muh freedumbs', instead of actually reading the arguments and trying to understand them?

[Uxupox]

Nah, your arguments are filled with authoritarian spinzel that is completely unsavory in the United States.

Wew, lad.

Why should I bother continuing this debate with you, anyway, when it seems obvious you're just dedicating yourself to calling everyone in support of this authoritarian and 'against muh freedumbs', instead of actually reading the arguments and trying to understand them?

Your argumetns are filled with shitting on freedom of speech. I'd rather not get arrested for freely speaking my mind.