On the criminalisation of hate speech etc

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:50 am

Current case happening here, in which a teenager being obnoxious and offensive and basically a horrible person on the internet was arrested and sentenced to jail. Among other things, while the nation was mourning Lee Kuan Yew's death, he made a bunch of videos celebrating it and making fun of LKY, because he's cool and rebellious that way. He also insulted Christianity a lot, when hate speech against any religion is illegal here (and it's pretty uniformly enforced across religions).

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singapo ... 56795.html

One might find Amos offensive. One might find him annoying, rude, arrogant, vulgar and disrespectful. One might thoroughly dislike him. One might actively choose to avoid him if caught in a social situation together. And that's perfectly fine. No one is required to like Amos.
But all of that is completely separate from the fact that in Singapore, you can be reported and arrested for being offensive and annoying and rude and vulgar and disrespectful. That you can be charged for harassment despite the fact that no one was forced to watch your YouTube video (everyone who was distressed by the video could have, at any point, closed the browser and gone on with his or her life). That it can be a criminal offence, in Singapore, to say things that people don't like to hear.
There are implications for freedom of speech here that we as a society have yet to really question and explore.

I generally feel inclined to agree, and on principle I'm against censorship.
...but sometimes I think the world might be a nicer place if more places made being an asshole a criminal offense.

Sites like Stormfront would no longer exist, for instance. I remember that the first time I stumbled upon it in horror, my main response was surprise that all that extremist racist hate speech was allowed to flourish on the internet without anyone taking it down, and then I discovered that, in the US, the government doesn't actually take down sites like that. They do that here, all the time. People get jailed for running racist blogs or insulting various religions on the internet, at least if you garner enough exposure to be noticed.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:57 am

Your government should be overthrown and everyone involved should be executed, by fire.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:57 am

Your government should be overthrown and everyone involved should be executed, by fire.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:03 am

I still think Freedom of Speech is an illusion. Distorted and manipulated by the people of power. I know it's an unpopular opinion to hold. But it is what it is. My point is, NONE OF US has freedom of speech.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:07 am

And your evidence is two videos of a guy exercising his freedom of speech without any legal repercussions.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:08 am

You live in Singapore? I watched the video shortly after it came out and didn't get the impression he was being an asshole for the sake of being cool or rebellious, he seemed to genuinely feel that way. You disagree with what he said? I don't really know how to feel; LKY seemed like a really fascinating and complicated guy.

I'm not really against hate speech laws in principle, any more than I'm against other laws in principle, but I don't trust the motivations of those who enforce them. On the other hand I don't agree with the almost religious notion Americans have that "free speech" is an axiomatic good, and in many cases it can be used for bad. It's... complicated.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:15 am

CashRules wrote:And your evidence is two videos of a guy exercising his freedom of speech without any legal repercussions.

You always miss my point in these issues.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:16 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:You live in Singapore? I watched the video shortly after it came out and didn't get the impression he was being an asshole for the sake of being cool or rebellious, he seemed to genuinely feel that way. You disagree with what he said? I don't really know how to feel; LKY seemed like a really fascinating and complicated guy.

I'm not really against hate speech laws in principle, any more than I'm against other laws in principle, but I don't trust the motivations of those who enforce them. On the other hand I don't agree with the almost religious notion Americans have that "free speech" is an axiomatic good, and in many cases it can be used for bad. It's... complicated.

If we want to see Freedom of Speech as an axiomatic good then we need two things:

1. Destroy capitalist imperialism of the white male supremacists.
2. Anarchy

Until then... I don't consider it.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:26 am

@DA - I admittedly didn't actually watch the videos, just heard quote snippets and what people said about them. You're right: LKY was a complicated guy with various issues. It was more about the timing - criticism of a person is one thing, criticism when that person has just died is another, especially if it's someone whom lots of people loved and are mourning.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:37 am

and yeah, I probably shouldn't talk about stuff I haven't watched. >_> It's bad practice, and I try not to do that. In my defense, people were practically frothing at the mouth and calling for the graphic torture and castration of Amos, and I figured I had psychologically healthier ways to spend my time than watching videos that engendered that degree of reaction, plus figuring that if people got *that* mad, it was probably really bad. I forgot this was the Internet.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:37 am

No I don't. The government manipulates a lot of things but freedom of speech will be the last one to go. They still have to play the game of "divide and conquer" where the right convinces god-fearing gun-owners that their rights are somehow threatened by people who smoke weed and by gay people being treated like first-class citizens and the left convinces the gay weed-smokers that they can't be free as long as people are allowed to own guns. The only reason there are still a few people who recognize this ploy is because free speech, once implemented, is the most difficult freedom to remove. If you want to say that governments are successful in manipulating tunnel-visioned assholes into saying stupid shit that proves that the assholes think only their specific rights matter, then I might agree. But as long as there are still people who will state the fact that true freedom can only exist in a world where married lesbians protect their marijuana fields with AK-47s and pit bulls then freedom of speech still exists. Some fuckwits (97.683% of the population in the U.S.) have just allowed themselves to be manipulated into exercising it poorly. That doesn't, however, prevent the intelligent, rational, still-capable-of-independent-thought portion of the population from exercising it well. Idiots will still scream about their right to own guns while freaking out at the thought of a black man walking down the sidewalk with a holstered pistol, but others will still exercise their free speech by saying "Moron, that's what you're arguing for and now you're arguing against it, so stay consistent you racist prick." Likewise, morons will ramble on about freedom of religion while, in the next breath, saying "No Mosques in our town." The rational 2.317% will exercise their free speech to point out the hypocrisy. Idiots will say "You shouldn't have a gun unless you're in the military or law enforcement." The people who can think for themselves will point out how well that works. As long as there are people who are mentally capable and willing to exercise their free speech to point out the flaws in the arguments of the imbeciles, then free speech manages to hang on. It will, by it's nature, be the last freedom to go.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:51 am

Yes, but I look at it more through the oppression scope. Where you have dehumanization/silencing in order to advance agendas.
Of course you can say a lot of silly shit without repercussions in western societies, but the government will be willing to silence you for opposing their agendas. I consider Fox News to be in the borderline of hate speech, but Fox News is also part of the divide and conquer scheme you mention.

But what about the Assanges, the reporters at Guantanamo, protesters who are sitting in jail for challenging the system? The government simply doesn't give you 100% freedom of expression and hate speech is nothing but dehumanization tactics the system uses to advance exploitation. It's people of color and exploited countries that suffer the consequences of this "freedom of expression."

Of course I do believe everyone should have a right to say what they want, I'm not challenging that. I'm saying this not a reality in the oppressive system that rules the world.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:07 am

I still think Freedom of Speech is an illusion. Distorted and manipulated by the people of power.

I dunno - freedom of speech has never been about the right to say whatever you want whenever you want regardless of any possible outcomes anymore than saying "a free country" means a country without any laws. There are always legal responsibilities that people have to adhere to when you engage in any sort of activity - So, yeah, to a degree freedom of speech is an illusion if what you mean by freedom of speech is some unfettered right to say anything you regardless of consequences.

Here, you have never been allowed to incite violence by way of your speech, its illegal to defame someone's reputation there are laws around producing and distributing objectionable material (like child porn and in some states - x rated material) and more recently we have crack downs on how data can be used in terms of our privacy laws and since 1995 we've had the racial vilification act.

I think its still reasonable to classify a country with these restrictions in place as a country that enjoys freedom of speech because freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to cause harm.

With regards to the racial vilification act, the intent is not to stop unpopular or contentious matters about race being raised. The design of the laws both envisages and then expressly provides for public interest debate and fair comment.

Rather, the value of the law is to require those engaged in contentious debates to reflect on the accuracy of their arguments and the supporting facts before these are used.

In terms of Anakin's post - what we have here seems to be a country that is attempting to police opinion, not protect disadvantaged groups or act to protect an individuals stock in their reputation or privacy. Why should there be regulations against criticism of religions for example?
We already have laws that prevent you acting to incite violence towards a group?

It would be considered illegal here to have a website that vilifies a particular race depending on the intent of the website in so much as you can be specifically prosecuted if the information you are publishing is specifically inflammatory or inaccurate rather than just unsavoury.

So - my opinion is that laws are needed to limit freedom of speech and always have been, this is not a new thing. But laws shouldn't be drafted to protect people from being offended. Its just as fine for someone to criticise Christianity by providing their opinion on the quality of their beliefs or whatever in the same way as its fine for people to criticise atheists for the lack of beliefs. Its not fine to call people to act to harm a group.

Essentially tho - I think the laws need to be as thin as possible in this regard.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:14 am

I'm not sure how you think the Julian Assange situation applies to free speech. In the U.S. he is suspected of espionage and in Sweden he's suspected of being a sexual predator. Now if the claim is the U.S. and Swedish governments made-up the allegations to silence him then that is a claim that needs to be supported by the person making the claim. Whether he is actually guilty of espionage is something I'm not qualified to comment on with any degree of knowledge but there are legitimate reasons to have laws against such behavior that have nothing to do with free speech. Assange doesn't help his own case, however, by hiding in Ecuador instead of manning up and answering the Swedish charges against him. His behavior is too similar to that of Roman Polanski for him to have much credibility. You also seem to confuse two different concepts: freedom of speech and "100% freedom of expression" so please stop Vegasing. Laws against "expression" that endanger the safety of others are not laws against free speech and the argument is a red herring. It's the same as people who ignorantly claim that free speech is limited by not being able to legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded building. Such laws do not, in any manner whatsoever, limit anyone's freedom of speech. Such "speech" is not covered by the concept of free speech. It never was, it was never supposed to be, the two things aren't even related and it takes a misunderstanding of the concept to think they are. As far as "protesters in jail for challenging the system" I would have to have an example of someone who is actually in jail for nothing more than exercising the right to free speech before I can comment. However, I'm only speaking as an American, which I'm sure you know, so I readily admit that oppressive regimes elsewhere shut people up by such oppressive measures. We already have an example of that in the OP.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:20 am

You also seem to confuse two different concepts: freedom of speech and "100% freedom of expression" so please stop Vegasing. Laws against "expression" that endanger the safety of others are not laws against free speech and the argument is a red herring. It's the same as people who ignorantly claim that free speech is limited by not being able to legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded building. Such laws do not, in any manner whatsoever, limit anyone's freedom of speech. Such "speech" is not covered by the concept of free speech. It never was, it was never supposed to be, the two things aren't even related and it takes a misunderstanding of the concept to think they are.

That's what I was going for

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:00 am

Why should there be regulations against criticism of religions for example?

To clarify - not criticism, but insult. Basically anything that can be construed as hate speech against a particular religion, although the definitions can be vague; for instance, Campus Crusade (I think) got into trouble under the law for an advert saying that Christians needed to go on mission trips to Thailand to tell those poor people about Jesus and save them from the miserable, unhappy lives they lead without God. Chick tracts are also illegal here - and the website banned - for its hateful portrayal of non-Christians and forceful evangelistic stance. Street preaching is likewise illegal.

The rationale is that we're a small country with an extremely multiracial and multireligious population (often within individual families), and allowing that kind of speech would end up dividing people into us-vs-them lines and fracture the country's sense of unity. Plus, once one group starts, the other side tends to fire back, and then it just escalates. So they try to nip it in the bud. It sort of works, I guess. While there's no shortage of people being angry, on the whole it's lot less organised and vitriolic than the unrestrained religious-based hate and violence in many other countries.

It's also a different context than the US when it comes to religion. The numbers of Christians/Muslims/non-religious here are roughly equal at around 15-20% each, with Buddhists making up around 40% (but Buddhists are usually chill about all this). Singapore is officially secular. In the US there's a Christian majority, and the tendency is to use such laws to silence any opposition and try to force a theocracy; whereas here it's more of, "all of you quit fighting and sit down". It's a different brand of censorship.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:18 am

To clarify - not criticism, but insult. Basically anything that can be construed as hate speech against a particular religion, although the definitions can be vague; for instance, Campus Crusade (I think) got into trouble under the law for an advert saying that Christians needed to go on mission trips to Thailand to tell those poor people about Jesus and save them from the miserable, unhappy lives they lead without God. Chick tracts are also illegal here - and the website banned - for its hateful portrayal of non-Christians and forceful evangelistic stance. Street preaching is likewise illegal.

Hate speech laws are by state here - in Victoria (where I hail from) this is the section of the act that applies to religious vilification

Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001:

Section 8.1

A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Section 11 of the Act provides this concession in favour of freedom of expression:

A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith— (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for— (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

As with all prosecutions -the reasonable Victims test applies in so much as the victim would have to suffered harm to the degree that it could be considered "reasonable" for a person in their position to suffer harm. So, it can't just cause offense but that offense would have to be reasonably severe and it would have to be deemed that a reasonable person in their position would have to consider the offence reasonably severe. In effect, there are very few prosecutions

There was this interesting side note in Wiki about it tho

In 2004, the Islamic Council of Victoria laid a complaint under the Act about the preaching by two Christian pastors. One pastor, a man who had fled Pakistan when a charge of blasphemy was made against him there, was Daniel Scot. The other pastor was Danny Nalliah. Scot and Nalliah made controversial remarks about Islam at a seminar.[5] On 17 December 2004, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in the person of Judge Michael Higgins, determined that the pastors had violated the Act. The judge sentenced them to print an apology—drafted by the judge—on their website, in their newsletter, and in eight advertisements appearing in two newspapers. The pastors appealed. The Supreme Court of Victoria overturned the Tribunal's decision.[6] The Court said the Tribunal had no business “attempt[ing] to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the Seminar." The Court directed a re-hearing before a different judge. The pastors and the Islamic Council of Victoria prevented a re-hearing by resolving their conflict through mediation on 22 June 2007.

Essentially - this is the way of things when it comes the law stepping in on matters of public discourse. More often than not the law will just back the fuck out and recognise that its there to act in cases where there is substantial harm caused, its not there to police dialogue.

Similarly - there was a case a while back where an aboriginal girl called another girl during a basketball game a "White slut".. the girl attempted to prosecute under the racial vilification act and failed with the courts effectively saying that the purpose of the act isn't to protect people from being offended even if those offences are racially motivated. Essentially it stated that given "being white" is not a vilified race within Australia, being protected by the racial vilifications act for a racial slur isn't the intent of the law in that instance.

In short - it takes more than simply looking at the legislation to work out where the law stands on certain issues and the law mostly tries to be as light in these matters as it can be only stepping in where there is substantive reason to act.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:11 am

Complaints have been made in the UK against a woman called Katie Hopkins, for her 'incitement of racial hatred', or whatever they call it. She wrote an article about Libyan immigrants calling them cockroaches, saying gunboats should destroy every ship bringing across refugees/immigrants etc Essentially she's been making money off being a racist, vile piece of shit and I'd love to see her charged.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:57 pm

While I like the idea of hate speech laws, I don't trust governments with shit like that. Salmon seems pretty confident they can get it right, but I'm not convinced.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:46 pm

All governments suck, but Americans seem far more paranoid about trusting their government than others. Is this some hangover from independence?

OurGloriousLeader · Post by **OurGloriousLeader** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:49 pm

They're the rich spoiled teenager of nations.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:59 pm

A two-party system that has resulted in a virtual oligarchy because no matter how much the two parties pretend to fight each other they always unite to make sure no other party has a chance of electing a single member to Congress (with 535 total members) much less the Presidency, this might be a partial explanation. The Democrats prefer Obama the past two elections, but they would rather having a lunatic like Michelle Bachmann as President than anyone from the Libertarian, Constitution, or even the Green party. At least other parties in the U.K. do get some recognition in Parliament, although I'm not sure why the entire membership of the SNP hasn't been executed for treason.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:43 pm

I think the whole Scottish independence thing is a joke. They had a vote, democracy spoke, but because they don't like the outcome they want to do it again. Seems a bit of a pisstake. I don't care one way or the other, but if democracy is so great, shouldn't the first vote be it? Not that I trust democracy. Too many racist, bigoted idiots are allowed a say, when really they ought to be IQ cleansed. Anything under 100 needs to be put down.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:49 pm

Voting should be based on gun ownership by squares; one gun = one vote; two guns = four votes... I'd get 10,404 votes. That's fair. That includes me being credited with the lesbians' votes because women shouldn't vote. Being lesbian doesn't change this. You can trace most of the problems with modern voting to the fact that women vote.

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:02 pm

^ truth

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:00 pm

The problem with laws against hate speech is defining what is hate speech.

Example: In Europe, currently a lot of people are talking about events that happened 100 years ago in Turkey and Russia. The events involved Armenians.
The reason I am formulating this in such a cryptic way is that different countries call these events differently and even use legal repercussions for not sticking to the official narrative.

In Turkey it's illegal to say that there was a genocide against Armenians.
In France it's illegal to say that there was no genocide against Armenians.

So what do people with ties to Turkey and France do? Just say nothing on the issue? There goes free speech.

Personally, I tend to agree with Voltaire. But what if someone chooses to say defamatory things about someone? Like accusing them of murder or pedophilia? If free speech was to be upheld at any cost, then defamation would be legal.

A complicated issue. The existence of long and heated discussions on the subject proves that it's complicated.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:10 pm

But what if someone chooses to say defamatory things about someone? Like accusing them of murder or pedophilia?

Just like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. To claim that freedom of speech means you can falsely accuse someone of murder and pedophilia is like saying freedom of assembly means you can camp out in someone's yard without their permission.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:14 pm

You wouldn't need hate speech laws if people simply followed the rule of "Don't be a discriminatory cunt." Unfortunately, far too many people don't do this

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:22 pm

CashRules wrote:Just like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. To claim that freedom of speech means you can falsely accuse someone of murder and pedophilia is like saying freedom of assembly means you can camp out in someone's yard without their permission.

Yes. But where do you draw the line?
Let's say someone (Person Y) says that the Holocaust did not happen.
Person X, a Jew, hears this, and feels offended. But is this enough to prohibit person Y from saying that the Holocaust did not happen? If we say that people don't have a right to not be offended, the answer is no.

But now, let's assume that person X lost relatives in the Holocaust. Then if person Y pretends that the Holocaust did not happen, this would by extension mean that person X is a liar. And then it would become libel.

So does this mean that only those who lost relatives and friends in the Holocaust would be allowed to sue Holocaust deniers?

Like I said before: A complicated issue.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:28 pm

Yeah, I can see how that mode of thinking would make it complicated.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:37 pm

Cash is speaking through a lens of ideals and technical definitions of free speech, while Liszt is talking about reality/practice and power. It's nice that a rational 2.3 percent might point out hypocrisies...but it's meaningless without the power to do anything about it. Unjust power doesn't bend to reasonable arguments.

So, I have spoken.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:53 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:While I like the idea of hate speech laws, I don't trust governments with shit like that. Salmon seems pretty confident they can get it right, but I'm not convinced.

Well, not exactly. The governments job is to get the legislation right, the courts job is to apply the legislation correctly, so in effect the are two potential points of failure that I don't have 100% trust in. So far I think our courts have got it mostly right in so much as the courts seem to do their best to interpret legislation in-line with its intent and in reality, very few cases get brought under this act. It's tends to be the more generally spectacular abuses of hate speech that get brought to trial.. and the few cases that have been brought to trial have built some reasonable precedents that will direct the law in future.

None of this means that I don't think it could all fall apart, it just doesn't seem to have fallen apart yet. Generally speaking, I have more faith in our courts to apply law correctly than I have in our governments to draft it - but these are obviously inter-related.
So, I'm concerned with this sort of legislation but none of my concerns have any basis in reality yet.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:50 am

Courts are a part of the government.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:19 am

...Meanwhile, a case involving an anti-gay activist just got ruled in favour of his freedom of expression, saying that a truly inclusive society would make room for "ideological differences".

I hate people.

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:31 am

BruceSmith78 wrote:Courts are a part of the government.

Well - yes, the courts are a function of the government but - I was more talking about the operational separation of these two branches rather than who pays the bills.

Obviously there is an amount of operational crossover - Judges here are elected by the governor general in consultation with The state attorney - usually with some consultation by the bar as well as the cabinet and are appointed for life till a retirement age so - yes there is obviously some level of partisan influence but given the appointments are for life - its diluted over time.

In either case - there is a constitutional mandate for judiciary independence - all that's well and good and still rife for abuse but my point wasn't to dismantle the potential for abuse as much as how it currently works.. and by enlarge it seems to work reasonably well for all intents and purposes. Once a judge is appointed, they are largely free from political pressures when deciding on common law. They are called on to interpret legislation inline with legal standards and the constitution rather than bow to political pressure and given our judges aren't elected for a term, they are largely independent of election concerns. You get fired because of incompetence rather than being unpopular.

What I was ultimately getting at tho is that - legislation is drafted with consultation from the legal bodies but essentially as an act of parliament - while legislation is wholly interpreted as an act of the judiciary without any parliamentary input .. and common law is almost entirely a function of legal precedent.

So - there are checks and balances but also two points of failure within the system - bad legislation will lead to poor legal decisions and poor Judicial oversight will lead to poor legal decisions.

And ultimately - it was a response to the statement that I have confidence in the system .. I was simply qualifying that from my perspective. I don't have 100% confidence in the system but I recognise its operational effectiveness in so much as it meets expectations. But I am always wary of any sort of legislation for a variety of reasons.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:33 am

CashRules wrote:I'm not sure how you think the Julian Assange situation applies to free speech. In the U.S. he is suspected of espionage and in Sweden he's suspected of being a sexual predator. Now if the claim is the U.S. and Swedish governments made-up the allegations to silence him then that is a claim that needs to be supported by the person making the claim. Whether he is actually guilty of espionage is something I'm not qualified to comment on with any degree of knowledge but there are legitimate reasons to have laws against such behavior that have nothing to do with free speech. Assange doesn't help his own case, however, by hiding in Ecuador instead of manning up and answering the Swedish charges against him. His behavior is too similar to that of Roman Polanski for him to have much credibility. You also seem to confuse two different concepts: freedom of speech and "100% freedom of expression" so please stop Vegasing. Laws against "expression" that endanger the safety of others are not laws against free speech and the argument is a red herring. It's the same as people who ignorantly claim that free speech is limited by not being able to legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded building. Such laws do not, in any manner whatsoever, limit anyone's freedom of speech. Such "speech" is not covered by the concept of free speech. It never was, it was never supposed to be, the two things aren't even related and it takes a misunderstanding of the concept to think they are. As far as "protesters in jail for challenging the system" I would have to have an example of someone who is actually in jail for nothing more than exercising the right to free speech before I can comment. However, I'm only speaking as an American, which I'm sure you know, so I readily admit that oppressive regimes elsewhere shut people up by such oppressive measures. We already have an example of that in the OP.

I meant Snowden.

There's a half an hour of video where Jen Psaki was psaking throughout her entire press conference. I didn't know Assange was a predator, I am reading about it and he is being charged for not getting tested for STD's?

I was not aware of that. I get these two confused because funny last names guys that are being prosecuted by the government. Assange made public the war crimes and terrorism of the U.S. and friends, Snowden made public the whole surveillance thing. Maybe you are right, maybe making public crimes by the government should not be a freedom we should have. But something like Charlie Hebdo is. Then the world is more screwed up that I thought.

And I wouldn't go to imperialist Sweden either if I had pissed off the American government. That'd be stupid. I'd go to North Korea. Ecuador is a lapdog to the U.S so good luck with that! Also I heard about a swedish politician who got hell for speaking against Saudi Arabia. But I don't know the whole extent to that since that sounds like good anti-muslim propaganda. But I can believe that, considering how much guns Sweden sell to Saudi Arabia.

Besides my point is that in a oppressive system, everything bends to adjust to the system, INCLUDING freedom of speech. And even you said it yourself Freedom of Speech is limited. But also I don't consider the "fire" scenario a manifestation of free speech. I am thinking more of the police brutality at the Wall Street protests or even the Snowden scenario. I also say it can even be manipulated. I guess we are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm ok with that. I like arguing with you.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:44 am

Cassius Clay wrote:So, I have spoken.

You have that right.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:46 am

Blade Azaezel wrote:All governments suck, but Americans seem far more paranoid about trusting their government than others. Is this some hangover from independence?

I have a theory and I think it has to do with the Red Scares. The U.S being an immigrant country obviously received people who were screwed over by socialists states, so is obvious many of them adopted ideals like the self-made man, randian objectivism, etc and essentially anything that will protect private investments. Which explains why any sort of leaning to the left, or any kind of government control is considered communism and a loss of freedom for them. (Even when they probably do have the most rightwing-capitalist open economy in the world (besides maybe Hong Kong)) So maybe they should just chill and understand, they are being screwed anyway.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:09 am

The red scare/Cold War is the clearest case of manipulating the public's perception ever devised by government. At no point from the end of World War II until the breakup of the Soviet Union did the Soviets and their allies stand any chance in Hell in an all-out war with the U.S. Their economic system was broken right from the start and even if they had the manpower to match up, they couldn't have financed such a war for more than a few months before going bankrupt. But the U.S. government needs a major foe to justify their ridiculously huge military expenditures so they exaggerate the strengths of whoever the current "enemy" may be. They've tried to make North Korea sound threatening. Yeah, we should feel threatened by a country we could completely annihilate in a day and a half. Few were ignorant enough to buy into that so now it's the rogue enemy of terrorism. Terrorism obviously exists and is a threat to unstable governments but except for a few sneak attacks it has never, and will never pose any serious threat to the U.S. It definitely doesn't justify the military budget. Just the U.S. and our closest ally, the U.K., have more total military firepower than every other nation on earth combined. No, China is not getting close to that. The U.S. is conning China into slowly bankrupting its own economy on military expenditures it can't sustain. Russia's nuclear weapons would be a threat except no established country is ever going to be foolish and suicidal enough to launch a nuclear strike on the U.S. or U.K. because their own country would cease to exist within the next few hours. China and North Korea's nukes could reach the Pacific Coast, maybe, but that's it. It's a simple fact of, excluding the west coast, they can't get to us while we can get to every square centimeter of their countries easily. But we have to make paper tigers like China and North Korea look threatening in order to keep the American people more worried about outside threats than about the erosion of civil liberties within our own borders. Too many of the rich and powerful have their wealth tied to the military and police for anything to change. Thomas Jefferson was right, it's foolish to go more than 20 years without a revolution. We've gone 150 years and that last one was fought for some fucked-up reasons, also tied to keeping people ignorant.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:14 am

My comment wasn't directed at the American government in particular, it was directed at governments in general. They just don't have a good track record of becoming overly involved in governing morality, which is what hate speech laws mean to do.

OurGloriousLeader · Post by **OurGloriousLeader** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:13 am

Blade Azaezel wrote:I think the whole Scottish independence thing is a joke. They had a vote, democracy spoke, but because they don't like the outcome they want to do it again. Seems a bit of a pisstake. I don't care one way or the other, but if democracy is so great, shouldn't the first vote be it?

Well apart from this being the 2nd vote on Scottish independence (the Yes vote won back in the 70s, but was judged not to have enough of a turnout...back when oil reserves were high coincidentally

), each vote can only be taken as a specific vote in context. 55% voted No to independence under certain criteria with certain mandated promises of further devolution. If that context changes, or the demographics change, etc etc, why shouldn't there be another vote? Besides, there's nothing undemocratic about continuing to campaign for something - if gay rights is shot down once, do we say the people have spoken? No, we tell them to stfu and vote again!

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:28 am

Just imagine, an entire country with an economy based on sheep and what men do with their sheep.

OurGloriousLeader · Post by **OurGloriousLeader** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:56 am

As opposed to pigs?

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:59 am

I said "entire country".

Post by **thesalmonofdoubt** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:07 am

CashRules wrote:Just imagine, an entire country with an economy based on sheep and what men do with their sheep.

No need to imagine - just pop yourself on a flight to New Zealand

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:28 am

^best comment