@Isaac

Looked around a bit, but I can't find the specific example I was looking for. It had something to do with a woman who posted an anti-gay Facebook post or Tweet and ended up being interrogated for several hours by police. There are plenty of other cases around though, e.g.:



Police were reported to be looking into whether a hate crime had been committed here.

In this case:



there was a prosecution and an £800 fine (statute allows for anything between a maximum of 6 months and seven years imprisonment). I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest.

In Ireland, we have The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. But the first conviction wasn't until 2000, and it was of a bus driver who told a Gambian passenger "You should go back to where you came from". (Ring any bells Trump fans?) Maybe firing him would have been enough.

Found this vid of @Michael doing his cockney thing. You'll notice he's a bit vertically challenged but a charming fella' nonetheless.

I'm going to leave the Terrapin stuff now because it's so out of bounds it's not really helpful to waste energy on it. Re hate speech, I agree it's potentially problematic, mostly for practical reasons, such as how laws are written and interpreted, and I hope we'll get into the specifics of all that in the context of some kind of wider cost-benefit analysis. I'll get involved in more detail when I have time.

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws? — jamalrob

Yes, it wasn't a great example because it partly related to other stuff that had come up and there's a danger of conflating the two issues.

I have one in particular I'd like to mention but don't have the time at the minute to present it. I'll be back.

It is this cost-benefit analysis that the discussion has really been about, though many refuse to see it that way — Isaac

Yes, it's unfortunate that Terrapin, whose views are essentially a parody of free speech advocates' positions, has taken up so much oxygen in the discussion. There are dangers to having hate speech laws (I know of some cases in the UK where they've been used over-zealously), but there are potentially more dangers to not having them. It's a debate worth having.

Do any serious commentators argue that ordering murder etc. ought to be defended on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech, or on the basis of its constitutional safeguards? I don't think even (reasonable) free speech absolutists would advance that position — jamalrob

No they don't, but it was a response to this unreasonable position and follow ups to it.

Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.
— Wittgenstein

No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime. — Terrapin Station

But yes, we should move away from this to a more sensible level of debate.

I'd rather acknowledge that sometimes words do lead to bad things than allow a situation where someone could order my family to be murdered and receive no punishment because some had an ideological attachment to free speech laws even more irrational than religious fundamentals' attachment to blasphemy laws.

In terms of hate speech, it's very difficult to write into law something that is highly contextual in practice, and there's always a risk of it going wrong, but on balance I'd prefer a society where extreme cases of hate speech, for example, surrounding a black person, shouting the N word at them and threatening to lynch them was not tolerated. I wouldn't make something like Holocaust denial illegal though as it is in some countries. What for me is objectionable is the immediate threat of violence and the intimidation that follows rather than the spreading of false or disgusting ideas.

Well, if this is pro rogue, I'd hate to see amateur rogue.

(Or we could allow 99.99% of speech to be free and just put some sensible limitations on the stuff that is likely to have extremely negative consequences for both individuals and society as a whole (like hate speech). Sorry, just a weird thought...)

Yes, can't wait for this dreamy world where those who can afford it are allowed to hire thugs to beat up, knock off, or torture anyone they don't like; where threats, intimidation, and coercion become just routine exercises in freedom; where those who incite hatred and violence are fully protected under the law while their victims just have to suck it up; and, as an environment of fear and loathing is fostered unopposed, we all sit around the campfire and sing songs of worship to our deity, Free Speech.

:lol:

It should really be restricted to expressing surprise, interest, or emphasis. It doesn't really make much difference in a sentence otherwise.

And if I reply to this, it will be further off-topic, so let's just leave it.

Off-topic stuff like this is just going to be deleted in future (and Terrapin can go advertise his absolutist views on his own discussion if that's all he wants to do). And the topic here is 'Should hate speech be allowed' not whether Terrapin (or anyone else) is a moron.

Hadn't thought about it. Best just to PM one of us first in a case like that. The main consideration is to preserve the site's integrity and that it not be used by anyone for promotional purposes. So, we'd judge in that context.

No worries. Restored.

Ah ok, I'll consider restoring it minus the link. Steve is staying banned though.

Banned @SteveKlinko for advertising his website after being warned not to.

Please be reminded that as per the guidelines:

"Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban."

We didn't make this site ad free so members could use it to sell T-shirts. Anyway, regardless of the content, please don't link to your personal site anywhere except in your profile And if in doubt, or if you want us to make an exception, just drop one of us a PM.

Thanks.

Boris is out-Nigelling Nigel in order to neutralise the Brexit party (his biggest electoral threat) before the inevitable snap election. Fun and games for him. Not so much for the British public.

I'm awaiting the benefits side of the cost-benefits analysis that would counter-balance allowing war crimes to go unpunished and psychopathic dictators to be allowed to order torture and murder with absolute impunity. I hope also to get an explanation of why the entire advertising industry need not exist because speech acts can't contribute causally to changes in consumer behaviour. Or why voting behaviour has all along been absolutely invulnerable to being affected by political propaganda. And of course for these extraordinary claims, at least some empirical evidence and at at least a bare-bones theoretical framework that explains the process by which decisions appear out of nowhere with no causal relationship whatsoever to what precedes them.

Of course, I'll get none of this, so maybe we can just focus on the extent to which the law should control hate speech—where to draw the line, the dangers of drawing it in the wrong place, and so on? As that actually has the potential to be a productive discussion. :pray:

(And let's call it a day on the ad homs.)

a pantywaist — NOS4A2

Congratulations on being the first person to ever use that insult on this forum. :brow:



There might as well be one ardent defender of Trump on the boards. But best not to debate who should be banned or not here. It's off-topic

No worries. It could be confusing because we have the phrase, X years of age. As in 'She is 64 years of age.' So, someone might conceivably say, 'I have a wife of 64 years of age' (though the first 'of' would be superfluous at best). You could more correctly say, 'I have a wife, 64 years of age', or better, 'I have a wife who's 64 years of age', or best, 'My wife is 64'. But someone's 'wife of X years' (period) definitely refers to the length of the marriage as before the marriage there was no 'wife'. It's parallel to the phrase, our "union of X years".

They were married for 64 years.

The phrase 'Wife of 64 years' doesn't have a determinable meaning out of context. What's the sentence you're confused about or want to make?

(To others⁠—not Terrapin as I won't indulge his deliberate attempt at distraction from his inability to make a basic case for his own position⁠—whether a decision is considered 'forced' or not depends on your definition of 'force'. And there are different contexts under which force can be defined, physical, psychological etc. In other words, it's not a question that admits of a simple yes/no answer and the attempt to procure one is just another rhetorical tactic.)

I've work to do now actually. Just wanted to demonstrate that with Terrapin, there's very often no 'there' there.

What is the process by which you think decision-making is reached? Give empirical evidence to back up your position.

As you can see folks, Terrapin has nothing to teach. And this is the type of thing you can expect when you deal with him.

You want to try to force me to agree with you even before the lesson begins? :confused:

I'm not going to do word play with you. If you really have something to 'teach', lay out the process of decision making and provide empirical evidence for it.

Lay out the process of decision making and provide empirical evidence for it.

Ok, Yoda, teach me about what causes decisions to be made. Lay out the process and provide empirical evidence for it.

Yes, you're the only one here who understands philosophy. And who isn't conceited.

Throwing the word "ontologically" in does no work in this context. Your "explanation" a) contradicts the above and b) commits you to saying that decisions based on X don't require X. Anyway, carry on as if anyone is falling for any of this.

But you accept that but for my posts you would not have written yours? — Baden

Sure, but that's not what a cause is. — Terrapin Station

A necessary cause of D means that D can't happen unless some particular antecedent, B, for example happens. — Terrapin Station

Glad you finally got around to admitting you were wrong. (Cue more sophistry and time wasting).

No fault on your part excepting over-optimism. And I think I'll leave it all as an instructive warning.

Full marks for effort. I would in future assess earlier the probability that you will be met with rational responses and stay or bail accordingly.

There is plenty of room between the type of divisiveness that would lead to a civil war and totalitarian levels of enforced conformity. Those who defend Trump-type-divisiveness are overwhelmingly not pro civil war and those that criticize it are overwhelmingly not pro totalitarian conformity. So, some level of divisiveness is good, but too much is bad, and people disagree about the levels that are desirable while almost never willing either extreme. If there's more to it than that, I'd love to know what.

You're probably correct.