California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The First Amendment is what's crap in this regard.

But yeah, I have to agree that's the likely outcome. The unhealthy obsession the US has about freedom of speech will squash all attempts of improvement, yet again. *sigh*

Improvement how exactly? The first amendment among many others of the early republic were a mixture of English law amongst others. So arguably it could be seen as an improvement upon the past interpretations.

He wants pretty drastic restrictions on freedom of speech.

[Omnonia]

Improvement how exactly? The first amendment among many others of the early republic were a mixture of English law amongst others. So arguably it could be seen as an improvement upon the past interpretations.

Criminalizing hate speech, insults etc. is an improvement over letting the 1st Amd stand as currently written, because it creates a better, more civilized and more respectful society for all, and strengthens democracy from being taken over by charismatic dictators.

[Lexicor]

I find it funny that a person arguing in favor of compelled speech is now using the block function because has the freedom to associate with whomever he please, a freedom that the 1st Amendment protects.

[Benuty]

Improvement how exactly? The first amendment among many others of the early republic were a mixture of English law amongst others. So arguably it could be seen as an improvement upon the past interpretations.

He wants pretty drastic restrictions on freedom of speech.

I mean the U.S has had plenty of opportunities for such occasions, and we have passed them by quite well. So I see no need to just suddenly reduce them all right now without a pretty good reason.

[Lexicor]

Improvement how exactly? The first amendment among many others of the early republic were a mixture of English law amongst others. So arguably it could be seen as an improvement upon the past interpretations.

Criminalizing hate speech, insults etc. is an improvement over letting the 1st Amd stand as currently written, because it creates a better, more civilized and more respectful society for all, and strengthens democracy from being taken over by charismatic dictators.

Hate speech is already codified as a criminal offense, if there is clear incitement to action against person or property.

[Benuty]

Criminalizing hate speech, insults etc. is an improvement over letting the 1st Amd stand as currently written, because it creates a better, more civilized and more respectful society for all, and strengthens democracy from being taken over by charismatic dictators.

Hate speech is already codified as a criminal offense, if there is clear incitement to action against person or property.

I mean yeah there is a lot on the law books dealing with just that.

"This afternoon I am going to lynch my neighbor" versus "I wish I could lynch my damn neighbor" the difference is pretty much there. Arresting someone over both regardless is a little harsh in my opinion.

[Omnonia]

To be honest that isn't the first time someone has done that, and then been surprised when it didn't work.

...seriously?

I find it funny that a person arguing in favor of compelled speech is now using the block function because has the freedom to associate with whomever he please, a freedom that the 1st Amendment protects.

Those are two very different rights. They aren't one and the same just because one specific document subsumed both of them into one article.

In fact, I have criticized the US for having too little freedom of association (not in this thread), just as much as I criticize it for too much freedom of speech.

[Lexicor]

Hate speech is already codified as a criminal offense, if there is clear incitement to action against person or property.

I mean yeah there is a lot on the law books dealing with just that.

"This afternoon I am going to lynch my neighbor" versus "I wish I could lynch my damn neighbor" the difference is pretty much there. Arresting someone over both regardless is a little harsh in my opinion.

100% agreed!

[Blasted Craigs]

Yeah but you hate freedom, it's something we should avoid.

Much as you love to construct that strawman... I don't hate freedom, I just despise anarchy and the stepping stone to tyranny by the next best charismatic dictator that it provides.

Germany has excellent freedom of speech, and I love that fact.

Well, excellent as long as you speak government approved speech.

[Gloriana Americana]

I can't even find the energy to complain about how stupid this proposal is.

[Lexicor]

To be honest that isn't the first time someone has done that, and then been surprised when it didn't work.

...seriously?

I find it funny that a person arguing in favor of compelled speech is now using the block function because has the freedom to associate with whomever he please, a freedom that the 1st Amendment protects.

Those are two very different rights. They aren't one and the same just because one specific document subsumed both of them into one article.

In fact, I have criticized the US for having too little freedom of association (not in this thread), just as much as I criticize it for too much freedom of speech.

You cannot have freedom of association without freedom of expression. In order to associate or disassociate yourself with a thing, you have to have the capacity to communicate it.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment. This crap might've survived in Canada because of the "reasonable limits" clause in our Constitution but it will never pass through the court system in the United States. I look forward to a comfy 9-0/8-1 ruling that renders this law null and void.

You mean that one law passed in Ontario set on protecting Transgender teens that was an update to an existing law that everyone took it like it was the end of the world?

[The Portland Territory]

It violates the 1st Amendment, not necessarily to free speech, but Freedom of Religion.

[Galloism]

It feels very arguable to me when we're talking about a duty of care situation.

I can see that point that's being made, but couldn't you also use that same argument for a worker who continually refers to the female clientele as "sugar tits", even though he or she has been repeatedly asked to stop? Or, to make sure we're gender neutral here, a worker who continually refers to male clientele as "dick face"?

Technically if an employee conducts what is considered to be a breach of duty of fidelity, which while specific depending on where you are generally means "Acting with intentional malice to damage the brand." Can lead to more than just dismissal and allow an employee to sue for damages. It would be different I imagine if the employee made a charter where 'misgendering' is cause for dismissal which would be less controversial than a abrogation to the first amendment in the main. Though I suspect a breach of such would be grounds for dismissal rather than outright firing, as employer-employee lawsuits are often quite messy things.

You mean allow an employer to sue for damages?

[Galloism]

It violates the 1st Amendment, not necessarily to free speech, but Freedom of Religion.

Which religion mandates specific pronoun usage in conversation?

Genuinely curious.

[Vassenor]

It violates the 1st Amendment, not necessarily to free speech, but Freedom of Religion.

So what religious belief does this violate?

[Omnonia]

You cannot have freedom of association without freedom of expression. In order to associate or disassociate yourself with a thing, you have to have the capacity to communicate it.

Simply not true, at least not with the fundamentalist black-and-white view of what freedom of speech/expression that is portrayed here.

You do not need to have insults and hate speech legalized in order to have freedom to associate or disassociate yourself from a thing, group, or ideology. That's simply not how it works. Speech in Germany is absolutely and without the shadow of a doubt free enough to do that perfectly fine.

[Lexicor]

You cannot have freedom of association without freedom of expression. In order to associate or disassociate yourself with a thing, you have to have the capacity to communicate it.

Simply not true, at least not with the fundamentalist black-and-white view of what freedom of speech/expression that is portrayed here.

You do not need to have insults and hate speech legalized in order to have freedom to associate or disassociate yourself from a thing, group, or ideology. That's simply not how it works. Speech in Germany is absolutely and without the shadow of a doubt free enough to do that perfectly fine.

Offense is a subjective standard which makes it a terrible basis for policy. What offends thee may not offend me, and what offends both of us may not offend a neo-Nazi. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. Citing Germany as good precedent for freedom of speech when they are arresting people for holding anti-migrant (EDITED from immigrant to migrant, because there is a clear distinction) views is laughable at best.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It violates the 1st Amendment, not necessarily to free speech, but Freedom of Religion.

So what religious belief does this violate?

It forces religious institutions to allow trans people to use whatever bathroom they want. Keep in mind, a religious institution is not a public group; they should be able to set whatever policy they want on their own property.

[Vassenor]

So what religious belief does this violate?

It forces religious institutions to allow trans people to use whatever bathroom they want. Keep in mind, a religious institution is not a public group; they should be able to set whatever policy they want on their own property.

So what religious belief does this violate?

[Chuching]

L

[Lexicor]

So what religious belief does this violate?

It forces religious institutions to allow trans people to use whatever bathroom they want. Keep in mind, a religious institution is not a public group; they should be able to set whatever policy they want on their own property.

God created Man, but nowhere in the most Holy of Holy Bibles does it say that god created a transgender man.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It forces religious institutions to allow trans people to use whatever bathroom they want. Keep in mind, a religious institution is not a public group; they should be able to set whatever policy they want on their own property.

So what religious belief does this violate?

>being this obtuse
Many religions have beliefs on gender roles and gender identity.

[Fauxia]

I am now imagining a conversation between inmates in a California prison.
"I shanked a guy. That's why I'm in here"
"I held up an accountant, but a witness called the cops. Now I'm stuck in dis prison"
"I called a transgender person male when they were identifying as female. She told me this, but I forgot, and called her a man again. The cops arrested me the next day"

[Vassenor]

So what religious belief does this violate?

>being this obtuse
Many religions have beliefs on gender roles and gender identity.

Name one then.