California: Possible Jail Time For Misgendering?

[Sovaal]

Son, people fit into two categories: Americans and people don't know they're Americans yet.

Manifest Destiny motherfuckers. First the West, then Canada, then the world!

Wait, i thought it was Puerto Rico, Canada, then the world.

[Cosmalia]

You can't go and say the authority of the constitution is void and then turn around and say that the constitution will protect us from abuses. I'm calling BS on that.

So you agree with me, and disagree with Turtleshrooms.

But if a government has the right to censor non-threatening speech there is no reasonable way to assert what it can and can't censor.

Yes, there is. That works perfectly fine in Germany, for 68 years and counting. Just because you personally seem unable and/or stubbornly unwilling to imagine it, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't project your limited capacities onto the world.

This gets into governments then abusing this power to censor political opinions they disapprove of. That is highly authoritarian and the opposite of free speech. Once it has been compromised that I can tell you you aren't allowed to voice an opinion I don't like, I can effectively censor anything. Racism? Censored. Dishonest newspapers? Censored. Liberals? Censored. Pacifists? Censored. Oh I don't like Jews? They're racist and privelaged so they should be censored. Anti-Fascists? Censored and charged. Criticizing the Fuhrer? Censored, can't have unlawful dissidents gaining power. Widowed wife begging the government not to take her son and force him into the military to murder innocent Jews? We don't like what she has to say so we will censor that and make sure her words never see the light of day. Do you see where I'm getting here?

Yeah, I do. The depths of Libertarian paranoia, that's where you're getting. You are very obviously believing that constitutions are null and void. But for some idiotically naive reason, you still support the 1st Amendment, even though it doesn't have any value at all, as it's just part of one of those worthless constitution thingies - some dead guy's ramblings on a mouldy piece of parchment, that doesn't impact the government's right to do as it pleases.

If you really dislike someone's opinion why don't you just work on rebutting then and convincing people that follow them not to believe their crap? The answer to social problems is not less free speech but more of it.

Because that worked out so well the last time around, and totally didn't cost a couple million lives.

The answer to "social problems" that are caused by ideas in open defiance of the concept of human rights and the dignity of humans IS less free speech. Nothing at all is lost by denying those opinions any platform in public, but a whole lot is gained by it. Some opinions are simply not worth being engaged in discussion; it is putting far to much value into them if you treat them as if they were of equal worth to other opinions. You ban them from public discourse, by force of law, and be done with it. That's the only rebuttal they really deserve. Only then, actual freedom can happen.

The authority of the constitution is not null and void. But it is a set of rules meant to be followed, so it can only be enforced if people are willing to. A judge can rule to release someone almost certainly proven of committing a crime unless someone challenges that ruling, and that is the point. The constitution, any constitution, only has as much power as we give it, and the overarching theme is that any rational society should and must respect their constitution if they are to avoid tyranny. A constitution is law, but like any laaw it must be enforced to be effective. The constitution, being a written document, cannot physically compel you to do anything, but others can using it. The point is we should.

Germany? That's your example? Anywhere in Europe in fact we can see how horribly allowing government to censor free speech is abused. In Germany today you can be arrested for posting online saying that you dislike Islam. In France, a cointry it is illegal to place Pro-Life content online, which is censored and charged for, or to publicly advocate for Pro-Life policies. No one is being threatened here. This is simply government censorship of opinions the current group in power doesn't like. Once again, there is no logical way to say what the government can or cannot censor once we give it the right to prosecute non threatening opinions. So don't act like this is paranoia. This is actually happening in the developed world today. This is political censorship. Period. The arrogance of many Americans is believing it can't happen here.

You realize that the same idea that some free speech could be censored could also be attributed to the rise of Nazi Germany as well? That was literally the point I was trying to make. When Brown shirts used violence to silence the opposition parties or when Nazi politicians advocated for censorship of dissenting positions, that was using the same system you want in place. Your problem is that you refuse to see how easily abused a system in which non threatening opinions can

Back to the topic post: this is not a very dramatic law, but considering where the rest of the world is going, it is entirely logical to be concerned about the fact that someone could be arrested for not entertaining and supporting a belief they deeply disapprove of, even though they are non-violent and non threatening.

[Vassenor]

So you agree with me, and disagree with Turtleshrooms.



Yes, there is. That works perfectly fine in Germany, for 68 years and counting. Just because you personally seem unable and/or stubbornly unwilling to imagine it, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't project your limited capacities onto the world.



Yeah, I do. The depths of Libertarian paranoia, that's where you're getting. You are very obviously believing that constitutions are null and void. But for some idiotically naive reason, you still support the 1st Amendment, even though it doesn't have any value at all, as it's just part of one of those worthless constitution thingies - some dead guy's ramblings on a mouldy piece of parchment, that doesn't impact the government's right to do as it pleases.



Because that worked out so well the last time around, and totally didn't cost a couple million lives.

The answer to "social problems" that are caused by ideas in open defiance of the concept of human rights and the dignity of humans IS less free speech. Nothing at all is lost by denying those opinions any platform in public, but a whole lot is gained by it. Some opinions are simply not worth being engaged in discussion; it is putting far to much value into them if you treat them as if they were of equal worth to other opinions. You ban them from public discourse, by force of law, and be done with it. That's the only rebuttal they really deserve. Only then, actual freedom can happen.

The authority of the constitution is not null and void. But it is a set of rules meant to be followed, so it can only be enforced if people are willing to. A judge can rule to release someone almost certainly proven of committing a crime unless someone challenges that ruling, and that is the point. The constitution, any constitution, only has as much power as we give it, and the overarching theme is that any rational society should and must respect their constitution if they are to avoid tyranny. A constitution is law, but like any laaw it must be enforced to be effective. The constitution, being a written document, cannot physically compel you to do anything, but others can using it. The point is we should.

Germany? That's your example? Anywhere in Europe in fact we can see how horribly allowing government to censor free speech is abused. In Germany today you can be arrested for posting online saying that you dislike Islam. In France, a cointry it is illegal to place Pro-Life content online, which is censored and charged for, or to publicly advocate for Pro-Life policies. No one is being threatened here. This is simply government censorship of opinions the current group in power doesn't like. Once again, there is no logical way to say what the government can or cannot censor once we give it the right to prosecute non threatening opinions. So don't act like this is paranoia. This is actually happening in the developed world today. This is political censorship. Period. The arrogance of many Americans is believing it can't happen here.

You realize that the same idea that some free speech could be censored could also be attributed to the rise of Nazi Germany as well? That was literally the point I was trying to make. When Brown shirts used violence to silence the opposition parties or when Nazi politicians advocated for censorship of dissenting positions, that was using the same system you want in place. Your problem is that you refuse to see how easily abused a system in which non threatening opinions can

Back to the topic post: this is not a very dramatic law, but considering where the rest of the world is going, it is entirely logical to be concerned about the fact that someone could be arrested for not entertaining and supporting a belief they deeply disapprove of, even though they are non-violent and non threatening.

So we're back to "I should be allowed to psychologically abuse people because I think they're icky".

[Proctopeo]

The authority of the constitution is not null and void. But it is a set of rules meant to be followed, so it can only be enforced if people are willing to. A judge can rule to release someone almost certainly proven of committing a crime unless someone challenges that ruling, and that is the point. The constitution, any constitution, only has as much power as we give it, and the overarching theme is that any rational society should and must respect their constitution if they are to avoid tyranny. A constitution is law, but like any laaw it must be enforced to be effective. The constitution, being a written document, cannot physically compel you to do anything, but others can using it. The point is we should.

Germany? That's your example? Anywhere in Europe in fact we can see how horribly allowing government to censor free speech is abused. In Germany today you can be arrested for posting online saying that you dislike Islam. In France, a cointry it is illegal to place Pro-Life content online, which is censored and charged for, or to publicly advocate for Pro-Life policies. No one is being threatened here. This is simply government censorship of opinions the current group in power doesn't like. Once again, there is no logical way to say what the government can or cannot censor once we give it the right to prosecute non threatening opinions. So don't act like this is paranoia. This is actually happening in the developed world today. This is political censorship. Period. The arrogance of many Americans is believing it can't happen here.

You realize that the same idea that some free speech could be censored could also be attributed to the rise of Nazi Germany as well? That was literally the point I was trying to make. When Brown shirts used violence to silence the opposition parties or when Nazi politicians advocated for censorship of dissenting positions, that was using the same system you want in place. Your problem is that you refuse to see how easily abused a system in which non threatening opinions can

Back to the topic post: this is not a very dramatic law, but considering where the rest of the world is going, it is entirely logical to be concerned about the fact that someone could be arrested for not entertaining and supporting a belief they deeply disapprove of, even though they are non-violent and non threatening.

So we're back to "I should be allowed to psychologically abuse people because I think they're icky".

Farmer Brown called, he wants his scarecrow back. He tells me it disappeared last night and it looked kinda like this.

[Vassenor]

So we're back to "I should be allowed to psychologically abuse people because I think they're icky".

Farmer Brown called, he wants his scarecrow back. He tells me it disappeared last night and it looked kinda like this.

Well if people are going to keep intentionally misrepresenting what's even in the bill...

[Omnonia]

Germany? That's your example?

Yes, because freedom of speech speech is handled near perfectly in Germany. Far, far better than in the US, IMO.

Anywhere in Europe in fact we can see how horribly allowing government to censor free speech is abused. In Germany today you can be arrested for posting online saying that you dislike Islam.

Incorrect. You can be arrested for inciting hatred against Muslims, and/or calling for Islam to be destroyed or outlawed. And that is just as it should be, I 100% support that. That is defending a secular democracy rooted in freedom and human rights against its enemies.

In France, a cointry it is illegal to place Pro-Life content online, which is censored and charged for, or to publicly advocate for Pro-Life policies.

Still legal to place that online as long as they openly identify that they are pro-life, and intent on dissuading women from aborting. It's only illegal to present it while posing as providing neutral, unbiased information. So, again, incorrect statement from your side.

No one is being threatened here. This is simply government censorship of opinions the current group in power doesn't like. Once again, there is no logical way to say what the government can or cannot censor once we give it the right to prosecute non threatening opinions. So don't act like this is paranoia. This is actually happening in the developed world today. This is political censorship. Period. The arrogance of many Americans is believing it can't happen here.

It is paranoia, because you're misrepresenting things. What you're making a fuss about simply is not happening outside of your head.

You realize that the same idea that some free speech could be censored could also be attributed to the rise of Nazi Germany as well? That was literally the point I was trying to make. When Brown shirts used violence to silence the opposition parties or when Nazi politicians advocated for censorship of dissenting positions, that was using the same system you want in place. Your problem is that you refuse to see how easily abused a system in which non threatening opinions can

And that's complete nonsense, the same paranoid false equivalency your lot keeps throwing around all the time.

More legal restrictions on free speech in Weimar Germany could have prevented the rise of Hitler. Too much free speech caused the rise of Nazism in the first place. That's a lesson Germany learned, and took to heart - after 1945, a US-style Libertarian stance on freedom of speech is unconscionable. It's no coincidence that only the extreme right consistently supports US-style freedom of speech over here, and the entire rest of the political spectrum, from far left to center right, is in support of our constitution, which explicitly calls for limits on freedom of speech.

Let's hope it doesn't take millions of dead for the US to wake up and change the First Amendment. Even dozens of dead are dozens too much.

[United Muscovite Nations]

On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

Can someone who has read the bill clarify what this means? At first I thought it meant any institution, but now I'm wondering if it only refers to places like hospices.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

On top of this bill, it will be illegal for an institution to bar an individual from using any restroom based on biological sex, and no exceptions will be made for religious institutions which do not accept trans individuals.

Can someone who has read the bill clarify what this means? At first I thought it meant any institution, but now I'm wondering if it only refers to places like hospices.

It does refer to places like hospices, retirement homes, and whatnot.

You know, places where you are interned to be in the care of someone else. This still doesn't address the home-care industry where there's similar abuse, but I think this is a step in the right direction.

So basically, if a hospice worker denies you to use the restroom of your ascribed gender just because you have a dick, the person can complain and get the hospice worker a criminal offense on their record. Which, you know, is entirely valid.

We can debate about what happens to us young people, but elderly people I feel a bit more deference and I feel they should be treated better.

[Proctopeo]

Farmer Brown called, he wants his scarecrow back. He tells me it disappeared last night and it looked kinda like this.

Well if people are going to keep intentionally misrepresenting what's even in the bill...

I don't think you know what they're discussing.
It's pretty off-topic to be sure.

[Omnonia]

I don't think you know what they're discussing.
It's pretty off-topic to be sure.

Hardly, when it's the same old, same old "but muh free speech" used as the counterargument against this bill, with little other reason presented against it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think you know what they're discussing.
It's pretty off-topic to be sure.

Hardly, when it's the same old, same old "but muh free speech" used as the counterargument against this bill, with little other reason presented against it.

Funny thing is, this isn't even about free speech.

In the United States, professionals have to talk a certain way and behave a certain way.

For instance, schmuck schmuckington MD can call people "nigger" all he wants, out in the street. When he's on the job he can't say that because he's beholden to laws and ethical principles that regulate his profession, or else risk a fine and removal of his license.

[Tombradya]

Hardly, when it's the same old, same old "but muh free speech" used as the counterargument against this bill, with little other reason presented against it.

Funny thing is, this isn't even about free speech.

In the United States, professionals have to talk a certain way and behave a certain way.

For instance, schmuck schmuckington MD can call people "nigger" all he wants, out in the street. When he's on the job he can't say that because he's beholden to laws and ethical principles that regulate his profession, or else risk a fine and removal of his license.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences of excercising said free speech.

As you correctly state, employers can in fact hold employees to a certain standard. If I owned a firm I would frown upon my sales people being avowed racists and/or waving confederate or nazi flags, they would be fired at first opportunity.