Free Speech and Hate Speech Discussion Thread

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But you could interpret that as someone stealing his car and then attempting to run over people with it.

You could, but that was very evidently not the intent and the less reasonable interpretation based on context.

It was a meme.

(also who is Penn)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

In reference to this

I choose to interpret it that way.

Ok... But I was just saying that what you said was an opinion not objective fact.

So, you threw your own opinion into the trash?

---

Anyway, tbh I'm rather tired of this thread. 4-5 days of debating the same points over and over again.

My views still stand that the right to threaten should not exist and neither should being able to say that someone should commit suicide.

For even of one life is saved thanks to these changes, it would be immensely worth it.

I'm speaking from the viewpoint of someone who has had a stalker threatening me threatening that said this bullshit to me at one point:

"I'm associated into politics I have people who can do many things for me and I will be rewarded for my work for them. After all, they gave me that tool."

Also, I have had multiple suicidal thoughts.

But anyway, going to leave this thread alone for a while.

---

(Also this post has been bugging me)

Putting vitamin D in the water is superfluous for reasons that even a cursory reading of the aforementioned Wikipedia article demonstrates. Vitamin D is not water-soluble, but fat-soluble (which is why we put it in milk and foods, not water). Fun fact: our bodies also produce vitamin D on their own! Between adequate sunlight (which is variable from person to person) and diet, we already get enough vitamin D. Fortifying water with it is just pointless, and risk giving people too much of the vitamin, with all the terrible side-effects that comes with.

Ok then how about Vitamin B? Something that is also water soluble and fights depression,

[Nocturnalis]

(Also this post has been bugging me)

Putting vitamin D in the water is superfluous for reasons that even a cursory reading of the aforementioned Wikipedia article demonstrates. Vitamin D is not water-soluble, but fat-soluble (which is why we put it in milk and foods, not water). Fun fact: our bodies also produce vitamin D on their own! Between adequate sunlight (which is variable from person to person) and diet, we already get enough vitamin D. Fortifying water with it is just pointless, and risk giving people too much of the vitamin, with all the terrible side-effects that comes with.

Ok then how about Vitamin B? Something that is also water soluble and fights depression,

Already in plenty of foods - you want Vitamins B12 and D in one meal? Have a bowl of cereal - but since you posted that link...

However, B-12 and other vitamin supplements can interact with some medications, especially in high doses. Talk to your doctor before you take a vitamin supplement.

Would be awfully fun to have something go wrong with your meds because you decided to drink a glass of water.

To use a bit of your logic on this, if even one person dies because you decided to spike the water with coblamin, you've already lost.

Keep in mind, the role of B vitamins in depression isn't clear. If you have a vitamin deficiency, taking a supplement may help. But no supplement can replace proven depression treatments such as antidepressants and psychological counseling.

Fortifying water in the aim of inducing a false state of happiness in the populace won't solve anything. It could do something, but at that point you're just treating the symptoms rather than the underlying problem, and even then there are better methods to treat the symptoms.

[Zottistan]

Well as far as I can tell that one is specifically protecting people from being harassed and threatened out of practicing their legal rights rather than just threats in general.

I'm sure the US does have laws against death threats, because you can definitely call the police if people are threatening you, although it might be handled at state level. Don't really know to be honest. But if saying "let's kill that guy" is illegal, I'm sure any reasonable court would pass the same sentence for saying "that guy should be dead" leading to his murder.

Yes, but wouldn't it be nice to arrest people who just make the threats before they can even try killing them?

I mean you probably can. I thought the discussion was about the difference between wishing death and threatening death?

[Liriena]

Okay... but who, for example?

Anita Sarkeesian is an example. Riley J. Dennis is another.

Okay. What is it that makes them "SJWs"?

[Liriena]

Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Mao Zedong, Angela Davis, Judith Butler, Richard Dawkins, Cenk Uyghur, etc.

[West Leas Oros]

You...you have a Communist flag...yet...you're reasonable? How...what...HUH?!?! REALITY IS FALLING APART!!!

Jokin', o'course and I do agree that the left being hijacked by SJW thinking is incredibly concerning, even if I am centre-left and therefore identify more with centrist thought.

Well, most communists (bar, say, Stalinists and Jucheists AKA tankies) are pretty reasonable and well-versed in their ideology, for the most part.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban hate speech, unlike Oros. Does that make me, also a commie, unreasonable? Despite having rational, in-depth reasons behind this?

Hate speech and free speech are different is what's important. Hate speech is a legitimate and real threat to a person or group, otherwise it is not hate speech. Free speech means not hate speech or slander. Banning hate speech is fine, but first hate speech must be defined.

[Sovaal]

I would like "free speech" laws to be restricted to allow hatespeech only when you can back your claims up with facts.

So a claim like "the Jews deserved to be slaughtered and HItler was 100% right" would be fine - IF, and only IF, one can back it up with facts, reasoning etc. - and with that I mean NEW facts and reasoning that have not been debunked 1000 times already.

That way you can still have controversiala debates; but then at least they'd have some content.

So what about opinions? Can t say the government is evil if you got no proof.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Well, most communists (bar, say, Stalinists and Jucheists AKA tankies) are pretty reasonable and well-versed in their ideology, for the most part.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban hate speech, unlike Oros. Does that make me, also a commie, unreasonable? Despite having rational, in-depth reasons behind this?

Hate speech and free speech are different is what's important. Hate speech is a legitimate and real threat to a person or group, otherwise it is not hate speech. Free speech means not hate speech or slander. Banning hate speech is fine, but first hate speech must be defined.

Not really. Slender and hate speech was what started freedom of speech. Slandering the king was a thing that'd get you executed, and talking against the aristocratic hierarchy was too. If anything slander and hate speech made speech a freedom.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, most communists (bar, say, Stalinists and Jucheists AKA tankies) are pretty reasonable and well-versed in their ideology, for the most part.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban hate speech, unlike Oros. Does that make me, also a commie, unreasonable? Despite having rational, in-depth reasons behind this?

Hate speech and free speech are different is what's important. Hate speech is a legitimate and real threat to a person or group, otherwise it is not hate speech. Free speech means not hate speech or slander. Banning hate speech is fine, but first hate speech must be defined.

Time to ban tankies then.

[West Leas Oros]

Hate speech and free speech are different is what's important. Hate speech is a legitimate and real threat to a person or group, otherwise it is not hate speech. Free speech means not hate speech or slander. Banning hate speech is fine, but first hate speech must be defined.

Not really. Slender and hate speech was what started freedom of speech. Slandering the king was a thing that'd get you executed, and talking against the aristocratic hierarchy was too. If anything slander and hate speech made speech a freedom.

All the more reason to have More speech, rather than less.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Not really. Slender and hate speech was what started freedom of speech. Slandering the king was a thing that'd get you executed, and talking against the aristocratic hierarchy was too. If anything slander and hate speech made speech a freedom.

All the more reason to have More speech, rather than less.

Agreed. I simply don't agree with the idea of banning hate speech, since it itself is why freedom of speech was founded.

[Murray land]

@the op. Dude for real? You can't threaten to hurt people the first amendment does not protect that.Someone can say its a joke. But shit like that is taken seriously. You wanna make fucked up jokes? Keep them confined to your own friends who get it. Don't post it on YouTube.

[Proctopeo]

All the more reason to have More speech, rather than less.

Agreed. I simply don't agree with the idea of banning hate speech, since it itself is why freedom of speech was founded.

Especially when "hate speech" is rarely defined strictly enough.

[West Leas Oros]

@the op. Dude for real? You can't threaten to hurt people the first amendment does not protect that.Someone can say its a joke. But shit like that is taken seriously. You wanna make fucked up jokes? Keep them confined to your own friends who get it. Don't post it on YouTube.

Unless your threat is credible, it's legally protected. Weird, but true.

[Ors Might]

@the op. Dude for real? You can't threaten to hurt people the first amendment does not protect that.Someone can say its a joke. But shit like that is taken seriously. You wanna make fucked up jokes? Keep them confined to your own friends who get it. Don't post it on YouTube.

Unless your threat is credible, it's legally protected. Weird, but true.

I can see the reasoning behind that. The government has little interest in threats that can’t actually be carried out. Like say, for example, someone confined to a wheelchair threatening to stomp somebody’s head in until the putty comes out. Graphic and dickish, yes, but not something worth prosecution.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Unless your threat is credible, it's legally protected. Weird, but true.

I can see the reasoning behind that. The government has little interest in threats that can’t actually be carried out. Like say, for example, someone confined to a wheelchair threatening to stomp somebody’s head in until the putty comes out. Graphic and dickish, yes, but not something worth prosecution.

Hate speech and slander created freedom of speech. Speaking out or slandering against the king got you killed or thrown in jail. Yet you yourself suggest we bring that back? Do you want the rich to stop the hate speech against them?

[West Leas Oros]

Unless your threat is credible, it's legally protected. Weird, but true.

I can see the reasoning behind that. The government has little interest in threats that can’t actually be carried out. Like say, for example, someone confined to a wheelchair threatening to stomp somebody’s head in until the putty comes out. Graphic and dickish, yes, but not something worth prosecution.

see, you get it. gov't doesn't care about empty threats.

[Ors Might]

I can see the reasoning behind that. The government has little interest in threats that can’t actually be carried out. Like say, for example, someone confined to a wheelchair threatening to stomp somebody’s head in until the putty comes out. Graphic and dickish, yes, but not something worth prosecution.

Hate speech and slander created freedom of speech. Speaking out or slandering against the king got you killed or thrown in jail. Yet you yourself suggest we bring that back? Do you want the rich to stop the hate speech against them?

I’m sorry? I may have worded something poorly but I don’t see where in my post I indicated that I support hate speech laws. Just that I understand the reasoning behind the government not taking impossible threats seriously.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Hate speech and slander created freedom of speech. Speaking out or slandering against the king got you killed or thrown in jail. Yet you yourself suggest we bring that back? Do you want the rich to stop the hate speech against them?

I’m sorry? I may have worded something poorly but I don’t see where in my post I indicated that I support hate speech laws. Just that I understand the reasoning behind the government not taking impossible threats seriously.

Ah ok then. Sorry.

[Ors Might]

I’m sorry? I may have worded something poorly but I don’t see where in my post I indicated that I support hate speech laws. Just that I understand the reasoning behind the government not taking impossible threats seriously.

Ah ok then. Sorry.

It’s not a problem. To continue the subject and set matters straight, the only laws restricting speech I can see myself supporting are laws against slander and libel in cases where the accused knowingly lied about someone, conspiracy to commit crimes, repeated harassment, and incitement to violence. If these laws are in effect then hate speech laws are largely redundant at best.

[West Leas Oros]

Ah ok then. Sorry.

It’s not a problem. To continue the subject and set matters straight, the only laws restricting speech I can see myself supporting are laws against slander and libel in cases where the accused knowingly lied about someone, conspiracy to commit crimes, repeated harassment, and incitement to violence. If these laws are in effect then hate speech laws are largely redundant at best.

[Kaiserholt]

Congratulations, Scotland, on making jokes a crime worthy of conviction. With this and other news coming out of Britain in the last week, I'm not sure the UK is the best place for Free Speech...if it ever was. I just thank Gygax that Socrates isn't around...he'd be laughing ironically.

[Ors Might]

Congratulations, Scotland, on making jokes a crime worthy of conviction. With this and other news coming out of Britain in the last week, I'm not sure the UK is the best place for Free Speech...if it ever was. I just thank Gygax that Socrates isn't around...he'd be laughing ironically.

What has Scotland done, exactly?

[Farnhamia]

Congratulations, Scotland, on making jokes a crime worthy of conviction. With this and other news coming out of Britain in the last week, I'm not sure the UK is the best place for Free Speech...if it ever was. I just thank Gygax that Socrates isn't around...he'd be laughing ironically.

What has Scotland done, exactly?

Whatever it is, it wasn't digging up a thread that's been dead since January.

If it hasn't had a new post in more than four weeks, it's officially dead.