Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)
Brad
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 136 of 165 (174583)
01-07-2005 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Brian
01-05-2005 8:12 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Hi Brian,
I know this is a bit late, and I have not read through all the posts yet, so forgive me if this point has already been made, but you say you know what society you would prefer, and from what you have written you seem to prefer a society that wants to throw it's flaws under the rug and pretend like everything is great.
Just because KKK people can't go out on the street and offend people does not mean they no longer feel the way they do. Changing what people can say does not change their opinions. I would choose to live in a society where there is no racism because PEOPLE AREN'T RACIST. This will never happen if the problem is just hidden away behind silly laws that prevent people from expressing their opinion.
A good example of this in America right now is Howard Stern, he is fould mouthed, disgusting, and I find hilarious. But that doesn't mean everyone does, so the FCC thinks they can just start imposing fines on what he has and is saying. I'm sorry, this is crap. Change the station.
I support people's right to express their opinions, no matter what those opinions are as long as there is not threat of violence. I'm not sure but I think racism is hate speech, and therefor does constitute a threat of violence these days, so we're not as sad as we seem if I'm right.
My point is, Brian, I agree with most of what you say, where we differ is I want a system that supports honesty, you prefer a system that forces it's people to keep things 'in the closet.' It's 12:30am here, so I'm gonna quit before I become even more nonsensicle. I hope you at least understand WHY we support this freedom, even though we don't support the abuse it can cause. Agree to disagree and such.
Brad
[fixed no spaces between lines/thoughts, it was one big mass, looked like a Brad McFall post (oh a side note my name IS Brad...coincidence? I'm going to bed)]
This message has been edited by Shadow, 01-07-2005 03:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Brian, posted 01-05-2005 8:12 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 7:07 AM Brad has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 165 (174607)
01-07-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Jazzns
01-06-2005 11:48 AM


quote:
Which is a complete mischaracterization of what he said. In the USA you have to have a court order to get a wire tap to gather evidence on a suspect.
I thought that was suspended by the Patriot act. Either way its not a special or unusual provision - in the UK you need the consent of a judge.
quote:
In the USA I can sit in my own home, in your home, on the steps of the capitol building or even in the midst of the president himself and say how much I think the admistration sucks ass and I cannot by law be arrested unless I am also commiting some other crime by that act.
And the same applies here, and in SA. Expressing the opinion that the administration sucks ass DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THE DEGRADATION OF A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE. You know I don't think that at any point you or any of the defenders of the American position have actually addressed this point. You keep raising straw men about "offence" or dissent as if they were even remotely relevent. As I have pointed out, in the South African Constition free speech, including dissent, is generally protected and hate speech is specifically NOT protected. You have yet to explain why you would find this problematic.
quote:
Not on the basis that it is private property. On the basis that it is not officially sanctioned by an agent of the government.
Which is totally, utterly irrelevant except to the curiously anti-state ideology of the US. As pointed out in the article on SA's constitution, the very idea that this debate is a live issue is pretty much absurd from the South African experience. The majority of problems in regards race hate speech did not originate with the government but with private citizens on private property.* Whether or not it is government sanctioned is not inherently important to the issue. A criminal act is a criminal act, it does not become criminal only when perpetrated by a state authorised actor.
quote:
Overall, you seem to think abuse is sanctioned in the USA when it is explicitly not.
I think the consequence of your constitutional arrangements is an endorsement of hate-speech, yes. After all on this very board hate speech has been protected by default to claiming that the board is private property and therefore the owner has total freedom to determine whether or not they choose to publish that hate speech. A secondary argument was advanced to total freedom of speech. This is quite clearly the sanctioning of hate speech and the provision of a venue for its expression.
quote:
What is also explicitly protected by law is your expression that does not explicitly abuse anyone even if it may be denegrating or offensive. Even if you don't like it, that is the point. Your morals or sense of civility don't make law.
But fortunately my morals HAVE made law in the form of the South African constition, which I consider superior to yours. And furthermore this reponse fails to address the issue rtaised: the scenario offered was one in which you attended a ball game and found that it was being run by the KKK and you were obliged to listen to their bile at the start of the proceedings. Thegeneral reponse was that if you don't like it leave - which is a clear endorsement of the freedom of the KKK to carry out denigrating hate speech protected by their private property rights.
And incidentally you are probably the first person here to suggest I have sense of civility.
* this requires clarification. The government was certainly malicious and homicidal, but it did not much engage with actual hate-speech. That was left to citizens, many of whom had links with the state, of course, due to SA's particular history. SA had an entirely different argument (separate developemet) to justify apartheid which did not rely on racism. But of course the tenor of the culture was very racist, and this originated from private citizens and their control of the media of public discourse.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-07-2005 07:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 01-06-2005 11:48 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Jazzns, posted 01-07-2005 12:36 PM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 165 (174609)
01-07-2005 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Jazzns
01-06-2005 12:32 PM


Re: Land of the Free and Home of the Brain Dead
quote:
quote:
I have all those rights AND I have the right to be protected from dehumanising and degrading hate speech.
You have those same rights in the USA. The diffrerence is that it is only criminal when it becomes verbal assault. You cannot be arrested for saying something that might offend someone merely by its content.
Straw man YET AGAIN. I made NO MENTION OF OFFENSE EVER. I specifically referred to DEHUMANISING AND DEGRADING HATE SPEECH. Please debate honestly.
quote:
Which I freely admit. You however where implying that citizenship in the USA was still determined by land owners which is entirely false.
I most certainly did not. What I said was that in the US private property is a countervailing factor to legislation suppressing hate speech because even hate speech is protected by free speech legislation. The result, as always, is the freedom of the owners of the presses to print whatever they wanrt, however hateful and degrading. I dispute that this is freedom and call it de facto endorsement of hate speech.
quote:
The point was that neither I nor scharf were trying to appeal to the authority of the founding fathers. Because we must reference them in a description of the origins of our system does not constitute an appeal to authority.
Well I cannot imagine what other purpose it can serve. It's a reference to their presumed intent - what the hell does that have to do with the actual textual provisions and their validity? Surely those provision should be argued on their merits, not on speculation as to the psychology of someone long dead.
quote:
I personally think that the founding fathers were not enlightened enough to establish enough freedoms to prevent future problems that we had such a slavery, and suffrage, to which much bloodshed occurred to ammend.
Well sure, I agree with you. Thats precisely why the fact that something appears in the US constitution is by no means a clinching argument, and the constitution is not immune to or above criticism. As I have made abundantly clear, I think a consequence of your present system is de facto and endorsement of hate speech and I find it unacceptable.
quote:
Plain and simple, you cannot be arrested in the USA for the content of your expression.
Thus, hate speech is acceptable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Jazzns, posted 01-06-2005 12:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jazzns, posted 01-07-2005 1:00 PM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 165 (174611)
01-07-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Brad
01-07-2005 3:28 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
quote:
My point is, Brian, I agree with most of what you say, where we differ is I want a system that supports honesty, you prefer a system that forces it's people to keep things 'in the closet.'
That is by no means a valid analogy. I do not consider racism to be an inherent property of humans - I regard it as a poisonous ideology that is actively circulated. The supprression of hate speech is entirely in accordance with the protection of democracy, becuase hate speech is necessarily a public appeal for some citizens or groups to be treated differently under the law (such as repatriation) and is thus antidemocratic. There is not element to which "honesty" is relevant, and to describe the suppression of hate speech as keeping it inn the closet is wholly wrong. It is more akin to weeding it out, and preventing its further propagation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Brad, posted 01-07-2005 3:28 AM Brad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 7:45 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 145 by FliesOnly, posted 01-07-2005 10:22 AM contracycle has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 140 of 165 (174613)
01-07-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
01-06-2005 11:39 PM


Re: Ungrateful American
[qs]Everything was just fine so long as we allowed slavery, denied women the vote and the right to own property, enforced segregation laws......[/quote]
quote:
These things were accepted nearly worldwide at the time.
Um, so what?
You are the one saying that everything was fine until "we" started tampering.
The above are some of the things that the "tampering" rectified.
Do you think they were good changes or bad changes?
quote:
In spite of them, people were desperately wanting to migrate to America.
True.
quote:
Even many of the slaves who had Christian masters had had a better life here than in the pagan jungle tribe where they often lived in fear and danger.
Really?
Tell me, Buz, let's pretend that you live in the inner city with lots of gangs around. Then let's say that you were abducted in the middle of the night and were whisked away to a tropical paradise to clean toilets or grow and harvest cotton in the fields, where you were not allowed contact with your children or wife except maybe once or twice a year, but there were no gangs around so you didn't have to live in fear and danger.
You don't speak the language in this new place and you had to do everything your master told you to do, and you were not allowed to leave. You don't have any rights, no money, no freedom whatsoever.
Would you prefer that life or the previous one?
forced children into working 16-hour days in sweatshop factories, pursued polices to perpetuate poverty and starvation, etc.
quote:
Oh, come now. What percentage of America's children were forced to do this.......certainly a tiny percentage of all the children and there has been after America was established, relatively miniscule incidence of starvation and far less poverty than in most of the world.
Buzsaw, nearly a QUARTER of our children live below the poverty line.
You have this pie-in-the-sky image of America that just isn't true.
Here are some stats for you.
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE US AND OTHER RICH NATIONS
I seem to remember, however, having this conversation with you about a year ago, in which I showed you that the US does not have the best standard of living in the the world for it's citizens.
[qs]Where We Stand publishes an index of economic prosperity that takes into account all the following factors: productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods consumption, trading strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit-worthiness. And the best-off nations are:
Germany 1382
Japan 1363
Switzerland 1332
Canada 1216
United States 1178
Netherlands 1087
Sweden 1079
Norway 1061
United Kingdom 1049
Denmark 920
Finland 910
Poverty level (More):
United States 17.1%
Canada 12.6
United Kingdom 9.7
Switzerland 8.5
Germany 5.6
Sweden 5.3
Norway 5.2
Children under the poverty level:
United States 22.4%
Canada 15.5
United Kingdom 9.3
Switzerland 7.8
Sweden 5.0
Germany 4.9
Norway 4.8
Deaths from malnutrition (per million):
Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1
This is a devastating statistic for those who believe that America's greater commitment to individualism translates into greater individual freedom. In reality, the social democracies of Northern Europe are the freest societies in the world.
The United Nation's Human Freedom Index compares the amount of freedom that citizens of different countries enjoy. It considers the right to travel, assemble, and speak; the absence of forced labor, torture and other extreme legal punishment (such as the death penalty); freedom of political opposition, the press and trade unions; an independent judiciary; gender equality; and the legal right to trial, counsel of choice, privacy, religion and sexual practice.
The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom. More.):
Sweden 38
Denmark 38
Netherlands 37
Austria 36
Finland 36
France 35
Germany 35
Canada 34
Switzerland 34
Australia 33
United States 33
Japan 32
United Kingdom 32
quote:
Why do you think people were waiting in line to emigrate here?
Because they wewre starving or being killed/persecuted in their own countries.
Just because we had more food here doesn't make us utopia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2005 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Tal, posted 01-07-2005 8:40 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 165 (174614)
01-07-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by contracycle
01-07-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
quote:
I do not consider racism to be an inherent property of humans - I regard it as a poisonous ideology that is actively circulated. The supprression of hate speech is entirely in accordance with the protection of democracy, becuase hate speech is necessarily a public appeal for some citizens or groups to be treated differently under the law (such as repatriation) and is thus antidemocratic. There is not element to which "honesty" is relevant, and to describe the suppression of hate speech as keeping it inn the closet is wholly wrong. It is more akin to weeding it out, and preventing its further propagation.
OK, so should Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan be arrested for inciting racial hatred when he talks about whites and Jews?
He's a member of a marginalized group in the US. He's black.
But he says very inflammatory things about whites. Should he be arrested?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 7:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 10:27 AM nator has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 142 of 165 (174632)
01-07-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by nator
01-07-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Ungrateful American
Deaths from malnutrition (per million):
Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1
This is a devastating statistic for those who believe that America's greater commitment to individualism translates into greater individual freedom. In reality, the social democracies of Northern Europe are the freest societies in the world.
How do I read this graph? Is that 7% of males and 13% of females die of malnutrition in the US?
The United Nations Human Freedom Index
Surely you jest.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 7:33 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 9:02 AM Tal has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 165 (174646)
01-07-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tal
01-07-2005 8:40 AM


Re: Ungrateful American
Deaths from malnutrition (per million):
Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1
What the above graph says, for example, is that in the United States, 7 men and 13 women per million people in the population died from malnutrition.
So, if the US has around 300 million people that means that 2,100 men and 3,900 women died from malnutrition in the US.
The United Nations Human Freedom Index
quote:
Surely you jest.
No.
What's wrong with the index?
What independent index do you suggest using that you feel is better?
We have the largest percentage of our population in incarceration, by far, than any other industrialized nation. We have the death penalty. We just instituted the Patriot Act and the SCOTUS just made it OK for a US citizen to be denied due process. People at the highest levels of government are doing their best to circumvent the Geneva Conventions WRT imprisonment and torture.
I'm not saying we are the worst, but why do reject the UN index out of hand without an explanation?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-07-2005 09:03 AM

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tal, posted 01-07-2005 8:40 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Tal, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 AM nator has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 144 of 165 (174664)
01-07-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
01-07-2005 9:02 AM


Re: Ungrateful American
I'm not saying we are the worst, but why do reject the UN index out of hand without an explanation?
Oil for food?
Can you coroborate the malnurition deaths from another study?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 9:02 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 10:29 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 154 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 2:31 PM Tal has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 145 of 165 (174673)
01-07-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by contracycle
01-07-2005 7:07 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Hello Contracycle
contracycle writes:
The suppression of hate speech is entirely in accordance with the protection of democracy, because hate speech is necessarily a public appeal for some citizens or groups to be treated differently under the law (such as repatriation) and is thus antidemocratic.
I beg to differ. It is not the words that are antidemocratic, it's the action. At least that's how we view it here in this Country and I see no reason (nor do I have the desire) to ever change it. I think we have narrowed our differences down to this subtle little point. You consider the words where-as we consider the action.
So, while suppressing hate speech maybe considered "democratic", it can't be considered as supporting free speech.
(edited to fix numerous spelling errors)
This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 01-07-2005 10:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 7:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 10:41 AM FliesOnly has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 165 (174675)
01-07-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by nator
01-07-2005 7:45 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
quote:
OK, so should Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan be arrested for inciting racial hatred when he talks about whites and Jews?
And interesting case. In fact Farrakhan was barred from entry to Britain to preach on the same grounds as the Sex Pistols: speech likely to provoke public violence.
That said, I'm underwhelmed by the allegations against Farrakhan, and opposed BritGov in the above incident. I don't think he is a saint but I feel that the charges levelled - like those at Sharpton - have much more to do with American anti-black racism than anything else.
Farrakhan visited South Africa in 2002 and did not fall afoul of the exception for hate speech in the SA constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 7:45 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 2:39 PM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 165 (174676)
01-07-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Tal
01-07-2005 9:53 AM


Re: Ungrateful American
quote:
Can you coroborate the malnurition deaths from another study?
Yes thats right. The whole world is conspiring to deceive and defraud you.
May I offer you a tin foil hat to protect yourself from the orbital mind control lasers? Only 1 million of your earth dollars.
{Fixed quote box code - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2005 13:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Tal, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 AM Tal has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 165 (174681)
01-07-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by FliesOnly
01-07-2005 10:22 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
quote:
I think we have narrowed our differences down to this subtle little point.
quote:
So, while suppressing hate speech maybe considered "democratic", it can't be considered as supporting free speech.
Rewritten to read:
I appreciate your pint of view but point out the following: even in the US feedom of speech is not absolute. The classic qualification is that you do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded building, as this can easily be construed as a malicious act in its own right.
The difference in our positions is that I do not believe that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me". I think "the pen is mightier than the sword". As we saw with Bushes purely semantic linkage of Al Qaeda qwith Iraq, and how that succesfully manipulated American public opinion, public speech is a delicate issue.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-07-2005 11:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by FliesOnly, posted 01-07-2005 10:22 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by FliesOnly, posted 01-07-2005 12:55 PM contracycle has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 149 of 165 (174718)
01-07-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by contracycle
01-07-2005 6:47 AM


I thought that was suspended by the Patriot act. Either way its not a special or unusual provision - in the UK you need the consent of a judge.
Which is why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Congress has passed many laws which are/were unconstitutional which is unfortunate. Mostly the courts are good enough to strike these down in time. No system is perfect and the vigilance of the people is required even in a free country.
And the same applies here, and in SA. Expressing the opinion that the administration sucks ass DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THE DEGRADATION OF A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE. You know I don't think that at any point you or any of the defenders of the American position have actually addressed this point. You keep raising straw men about "offence" or dissent as if they were even remotely relevent. As I have pointed out, in the South African Constition free speech, including dissent, is generally protected and hate speech is specifically NOT protected. You have yet to explain why you would find this problematic.
I think much of this was addressed in my response to your challenge in my post Message 111. I will make no assumptions yet I will notice that you had not responded to that one which I feel was the more telling of the 3. In a hypothetical situation where the definition of "DEGRADATION" changes, you have the equivalent of fascism. We are unwilling to even entertain this possibility lest we cease becoming a free country.
It is not that most Americans enjoy or condone hate speech. It is just that we feel it is the first step toward the limitation of all freedom by legislating the morality of a specific culture in a specific time. My purpose with all the examples I have been giving have been to show how in another context that is not so personal, the same train of thought leads toward the limitation of other speech that is only "degrading" by invoking a slightly different, less diametrically opposed opinion.
Limiting freedom is not a black and white process. What may cause "DEGRADATION" today in the case of racial hate speech may case "DEGRADATION" in a decade for espousing a different religious preference. I am sure many Christians would feel "degraded" by the mere presence of a pagan or satanist or wiccan establishment across the street from their church. Now if most of us feel this is "degrading" enough now we can start arresting people based on a minority religious preference instead of a minority of people who use hate speech. The next step, which I use in my Message 111 example is that of political "degradation". If most of us feel "degraded" or "hurt" by the political opposition then we can just start arresting them. It is a gradient of morals where you cannot draw the line because morals don't make good laws most of the time.
Ever more disturbing is the way in which you tell if someone is really breaking the law. The mere feeling of racial "degradation" has a quantifiable property that you cannot pin down in law. Let me give a few personal examples to illustrate.
More than a few times, I have been in a public cafeteria where there was a news broadcast on TV. During particular times of high strife in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there were news stories about how someone killed someone and than the other side retaliated. At the table next to me, a person said how much they think the Palestinians are wrong and how they should all just learn to be civilized human beings. Me being of Palestinian descent I felt mildly hurt and offended by the fact that someone would group all Palestinian people as uncivilized. Now, should I be empowered by law to go find a police officer and have those men arrested for "racial degradation"?
At UNM in the largest library on campus there is a mural on a wall that has been there for quite some time. It was painted with the intent to show cultural diversity. Of course this was the intent that existed prior to the civil rights movement so the white people in the picture are all doctors and businessmen while the dark people are all farmers and workers. They are all holding hands in a beautiful panorama of color and detail. Except for the faces of the dark skinned people. All of the white people have facial features like eyes and noses while the dark skinned people simply have an oval of a particular shade of brown as their head. Certainly it is a racial degradation if any but in the time that it was created it was a shining example of acceptance of diversity. Currently there are many groups trying to get it removed from the library and many groups who want to keep it because of its historical significance as a milestone to the progression of acceptance of cultural diversity. This is where this gets tricky. It can be argued successfully both ways that this art is degrading either by saying that it is not due to its original intent or that it is because of its current connotation. Should the artist be arrested today in a system that outlaws expression that is considered racially degrading? Here we also see the problem of how a very ambiguous law can change drastically with time. That being said, even if he created it today should it be considered racially degrading if his intent was still that of showing acceptance of cultural diversity? Someone else might think that it is degrading but as for him and people who think like him it is a monument to acceptance.
The KEY of that example is that we are using racial degradation as our measure. Most of the time it is easy to tell what is racial degradation due to its extreme nature but sometimes it is not. Move the type of degradation to religious and then it is even harder to tell what REALLY is degradation and what is simply expressing your beliefs. Move that type of degradation to political and it is totally arbitrary what is considered degradation.
Overall, my problem with laws that outlaw speech is that they are necessarily ambiguous. What is not a crime today may become a crime in a decade simply by the passage of time and the change in culture. Likewise, what is a crime today may become perfectly acceptable in the future because there is no way to define the law strictly enough to account for all cultural changes that may ever constitute an act of "degradation".
A criminal act is a criminal act, it does not become criminal only when perpetrated by a state authorised actor.
You are mixing up your laws here. The Establishment Clause of the US Constitution makes it illegal for a government official to explicitly enforce a religious belief in the process of his position. A good example of this is a principle leading a prayer at a football game. The other is the freedom of speech which allows you to say what you want regardless of private of public property and not be arrested for the content of your speech. Respectfully, I think you are confusing the issue.
I think the consequence of your constitutional arrangements is an endorsement of hate-speech, yes. After all on this very board hate speech has been protected by default to claiming that the board is private property and therefore the owner has total freedom to determine whether or not they choose to publish that hate speech. A secondary argument was advanced to total freedom of speech. This is quite clearly the sanctioning of hate speech and the provision of a venue for its expression.
The consequence is that there will be many things that are not disallowed that some or even MOST may not like. That is not an endorsement of anything. What you consider quite clearly the sanctioning of hate speech I consider quite clearly the universal protection of freedom exempt from the constraints of any one particular moral system. The venue, as I have shown, only applies in the case of a government official in breech of the Establishment Clause during the exercise of the responsibilities of their office. Please, respectfully, bash the US Constitution that is rather than the US Constitution that you think you know.
But fortunately my morals HAVE made law in the form of the South African constition, which I consider superior to yours.
Which is theocratic and fascist IMHO and potentially by definition.
And furthermore this response fails to address the issue rtaised: the scenario offered was one in which you attended a ball game and found that it was being run by the KKK and you were obliged to listen to their bile at the start of the proceedings. Thegeneral reponse was that if you don't like it leave - which is a clear endorsement of the freedom of the KKK to carry out denigrating hate speech protected by their private property rights.
It is an endorsement only in your opinion and it has nothing to do with property rights. In reality it is a freedom that does not prohibit such action even in a public venue should they choose. In an attempt to combine the examples like you have, if a KKK member happened to be a principle of a school and was peacefully endorsing some twisted personal racial religion then it would be specifically be a violation of the Establishment Clause. If the KKK chooses to hold a rally on public or private property then this is not specifically restricted by the freedom of speech although they are responsible should they incite riot. In your opinion you consider this an endorsement. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion as law is explicitly unconstitutional in the USA.
And incidentally you are probably the first person here to suggest I have sense of civility.
Hating racism is a good start. I don't consider being forcefully opinionated necessarily uncivil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 6:47 AM contracycle has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 150 of 165 (174724)
01-07-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by contracycle
01-07-2005 10:41 AM


Re: Moral High Ground?
Hi Contracycle
Well, I had some comments to your first post but I see now that you edited itwhich is ok with me., but do let me say this:
How is hate speech antidemocratic? If a majority of the people want and accept hate speech, isn’t it antidemocratic to suppress it? And the real problem comes in when you have to decide WHO determines which words will defined as hateful and which words will not. If, in South Africa for example, a type of Apartheid once again becomes the system of government, and they (the leaders) decide that any words derogatory towards the white race are considered hateful, would that be ok with you?
Now, on to your edited version.
contracycle writes:
I appreciate your pint of view but point out the following: even in the US feedom of speech is not absolute. The classic qualification is that you do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded building, as this can easily be construed as a malicious act in its own right.
I agree and addressed it in your original post. Those sorts of words are indeed illegal in this country, as they should be. No one complains about suppressing words that cause, or are likely to cause, harm.
contracycle writes:
The difference in our positions is that I do not believe that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me". I think "the pen is mightier than the sword". As we saw with Bushes purely semantic linkage of Al Qaeda qwith Iraq, and how that succesfully manipulated American public opinion, public speech is a delicate issue.
I do see your point here. But there is a difference between saying hateful words (I think niggers are sub-human (ya know...I had a hard time even typing that)) and lying (Al Qaeda is linked to Iraq). George W. Bush should be held accountable for lying to the American Public. Trust me when I say that there are millions of Americans that would love nothing more than to see this hypocritical administration held accountable for its lies. But what does this have to do with free speech?
contracycle writes:
I think "the pen is mightier than the sword".
And I think when that when Edward George Bulwer Lytton wrote that phrase, the implication was that the pen would be used as a form of free speech to denounce hateful and despicable wordsnot to write laws banning them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by contracycle, posted 01-07-2005 10:41 AM contracycle has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024