by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:50 pm
by Napkiraly » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Draica wrote:I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:58 pm
Napkiraly wrote:Draica wrote:I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?
by Napkiraly » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:05 pm
That's not what I asked.Draica wrote:Napkiraly wrote:Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?
Is the wrong thing advancing a cause or proposal that is actively impeding, inhibiting, or harming another individual's livelihood? Of course not.
But when you get into the realm of private enterprise the lines become blurred; I am for protection against the Government sanctioning acceptable forms or speech and unacceptable forms of speech, those who own a business can do whatever they please (or should be able to, in my view).
by Proctopeo » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:11 pm
by Free Republics » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:11 pm
Napkiraly wrote:Draica wrote:I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?
by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:16 pm
Napkiraly wrote:That's not what I asked.Draica wrote:
Is the wrong thing advancing a cause or proposal that is actively impeding, inhibiting, or harming another individual's livelihood? Of course not.
But when you get into the realm of private enterprise the lines become blurred; I am for protection against the Government sanctioning acceptable forms or speech and unacceptable forms of speech, those who own a business can do whatever they please (or should be able to, in my view).
You said if it impedes, inhibits, or harms another's livelihood then it is no longer free speech but becomes harassment. That can open up the door to declaring demanding people be fired or face a boycott being charged with harassment. That's why harassment isn't defined by those parameters but rather repeated un-consented contact that serves no purpose than to annoy, create alarm, and cause emotional distress.
by Werftkrieg » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:18 pm
Draica wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/18/the-man-behind-the-neo-nazi-daily-stormer-website-is-being-sued-by-one-of-his-troll-storm-targets/?utm_term=.c42bf18422df
One of the major public figureheads of the alt right, Andrew Anglin, has launched an assault on a Jewish realtor who he claimed extorted Richard Spencer's mother. Long story short, he and his far-right, pro-white identitarian, racist leeches decided to harrass the woman, send her threatening phone calls and voice messages, harrass her husband and her twelve year old son.
However, he's stepped on the wrong toes. The Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations that is responsible for damaging the Klan and outright destroying various other neo-nazi hate groups is now targeting him in a lawsuit. The lawsuit itself can be read here:
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... _final.pdf
I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
I am happy that the SPLC filed this lawsuit (I generally do not agree with them on a lot, but this endeavor I whole-heartedly support) and if it works out in Miss Gersh's favor I believe the Daily Stormer and the alt right will have been struck a tremendous blow.
Your thoughts, NSG?
by Liriena » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:19 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Gauthier » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:21 pm
by Werftkrieg » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:23 pm
Gauthier wrote:This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".
by Proctopeo » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:24 pm
Gauthier wrote:This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".
by Gauthier » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:29 pm
by Saiwania » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:34 pm
by Proctopeo » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:42 pm
by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:44 pm
Saiwania wrote:I'm not inclined to believe the SPLC on anything, they're a bunch of liberal activists with an agenda. If this far right outlet is causing legal problems for themselves, they'll just have to settle or fight it out. The SPLC succeeding against them or not, depends a great deal on whether whoever they're shaking down has money that can be collected or not. If they don't have money, this is just squeezing blood from a stone. Lawyers are only interested in going after money that can actually be seized.
by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:55 pm
by Northwest Slobovia » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:59 pm
Draica wrote:I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
This case asserts claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Montana’s Anti-Intimidation Act arising out of a coordinated, repulsive, threatening campaign of anti-Semitic harassment directed at Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent living in Whitefish, Montana.
by Draica » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:04 pm
Northwest Slobovia wrote:Draica wrote:I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.
That's all fine, but that's not quite what they're suing over:This case asserts claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Montana’s Anti-Intimidation Act arising out of a coordinated, repulsive, threatening campaign of anti-Semitic harassment directed at Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent living in Whitefish, Montana.
So, the claim alleges damages on three grounds, none of which is merely harrassment. Just shouting, "I'll shut you down!" is not intimidation, but backing it with other actions and threats is.
by Napkiraly » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:10 pm
Draica wrote:I do not think many of you are thinking rationally as it pertains to this subject.
Instead of evaluating the claims the SPLC makes in this particular case, you use things they've done in the past that you disagree with to rend anything they do in the future, regardless of it's potential validity, invalid or worthy of being dismissed.
That is no way to have intellectual discourse.
by Northwest Slobovia » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:25 pm
Draica wrote:Northwest Slobovia wrote:That's all fine, but that's not quite what they're suing over:
So, the claim alleges damages on three grounds, none of which is merely harrassment. Just shouting, "I'll shut you down!" is not intimidation, but backing it with other actions and threats is.
The Montanna law they are using is clearly a harrassment claim. The quote you're using substantiates that.
The Montana Legislature wrote:27-1-1503. Civil action. (1) A public official, family member of a public official, juror, voter, individual, or organization that is injured, harmed, or otherwise aggrieved by the acts of another person in violation of 45-5-203, 45-7-102, or 45-7-209 has a civil cause of action against the person causing the harm.
(2) An individual or organization who is attempting to exercise a legally protected right and who is injured, harassed, or aggrieved by a threat or intimidation has a civil cause of action against the person engaging in the threatening or intimidating behavior.
(3) A conviction for violation of 45-5-203, 45-7-102, or 45-7-209 is not a condition precedent for a civil action under this section.
by Minzerland II » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:26 pm
Liriena wrote:I wish the SPLC the best of luck against those Nazi twits. Free speech is not speech free of consequences, and when the things you say hurt or endanger innocents, specially in the form of hate speech, you deserve to face severe consequences.
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
by Liriena » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:07 pm
Minzerland II wrote:Liriena wrote:I wish the SPLC the best of luck against those Nazi twits. Free speech is not speech free of consequences, and when the things you say hurt or endanger innocents, specially in the form of hate speech, you deserve to face severe consequences.
But that is exactly what it is. :^)
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Pope Joan » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:00 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bronzite, Cavirfi, Emotional Support Crocodile, GIMMICK NATION, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, IdontCare, Katinea, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan
Advertisement