From: XIII_rocks | #098 Uh, no? If you aggressively attack a single person with racial slurs
I'm sure Fabrice Muamba felt sufficiently offended and insulted by some guy's tweeting about him while he was in a coma.
No, as a matter of fact, these tweets didn't even offend the PERSON THEY WERE AIMED AT. They just offended random people who caused enough uproar to get the person jailed.
That is a lot more horrifying than some guy trolling on twitter, for me.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg 'Every day that I get better, I watch as you get worse.'
From: foolm0ron | #099 A country growing from nothing to the #1 country in the world financially, culturally, and militarily, as well as harboring the vast majority of top scientific and medical inventions of the last 100 years IS pretty legendary, you're right.
Is it weird to attribute some of that success to the legal document that ran at the core of the country since the beginning?
Is that weird? No. Is being so overly defensive about it that you utterly reject the possibility of some facets of it being wrong weird? Yes.
The constitution fundamentally is fine - having something to build yourselves on like that is great - but it's hardly untouchable.
From: ExThaNemesis | #097 Look at how we treat religion, for example.
None of our laws discriminate for or against any religious group at all. For any person that is discriminatory against a certain religion, there are many more that will tell him to shut up and stop being racist. We are doing really well, actually.
In Europe, they make laws that directly discriminate against muslims. You could probably kill an innocent muslim in France and get a medal for it.
-- _foolmo_ 'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain
Islam and Christianity deserve to be discriminated against more harshly than they are. I have absolutely no problem with how they treat that hate-mongering garbage (obviously I don't want people to be killed but still).
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg 'I have a voice that has the knowledge and the power to rule your fate.'
From: XIII_rocks | #102 Is that weird? No. Is being so overly defensive about it that you utterly reject the possibility of some facets of it being wrong weird? Yes.
The constitution fundamentally is fine - having something to build yourselves on like that is great - but it's hardly untouchable.
That's a fine knee-jerk argument, but have you actually read the Constitution? Everything in there is so carefully designed that if you get rid of any one thing, the rest falls apart. The only extraneous parts are the post-Bill of Rights amendments (11 and up). You could definitely slash/modify a few of those.
But the original document and the first 10 amendments are pretty much flawless. I am still confused as to why you want us to abandon the document that created the most quickly prosperous nation in all of history so that we can be more like that country that used to be on top for like 2000 years then went way downhill in the last 200 years.
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
i shudder to think of what would happen to our country if we decided the first amendment was "not important" enough to be protected completely and fully
that would likely be the beginning of the end of everything wonderful that america stands for
From: foolm0ron | #106 That's a fine knee-jerk argument, but have you actually read the Constitution? Everything in there is so carefully designed that if you get rid of any one thing, the rest falls apart. The only extraneous parts are the post-Bill of Rights amendments (11 and up). You could definitely slash/modify a few of those.
But the original document and the first 10 amendments are pretty much flawless. I am still confused as to why you want us to abandon the document that created the most quickly prosperous nation in all of history so that we can be more like that country that used to be on top for like 2000 years then went way downhill in the last 200 years.
Nope, I haven't, nor do I have a desire to. It's an observation that doesn't require me to have read it.
And I never said I want you to abandon it. Just that you have a very very defensive attitude towards it to the point that it gets kind of...odd, to say the least, from an outsider's perspective. Like I said, time passes and the way people interact changes and eventually things have to be looked at and at least brought into serious debate. But Americans tend to completely reject that debate, which I don't feel is a progressive attitude. Like, I doubt any of the Americans who have posted in this topic so far have even once questioned the possibility that a racist dickhead should spend some time in jail. Like, it's almost as if you aren't even entertaining the idea of a debate, which strikes me as short-sighted.
Where did you even get the idea that I want America to abandon the constitution from?
From: scotted4 | #096 I find those who think they can tell me what to do with my body is offensive.
Throw the pro-life supporters in jail
I-am I being trolled or are you being serious here?
I mean among the million things wrong with this argument, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice is actually a debate. Being pro-life/pro-choice, while a very sensitive issue, has clear and logical arguments on both sides of the spectrum. Meanwhile, there's no real excuse for racism. You don't get to justify deciding somebody deserves to die based on skin colour - it's kind of factually wrong to do that, wouldn't you agree?
Being offended by simple opinion is your problem. They shouldn't be jailed for that opinion. Racism is different and you know it.
From: ExThaNemesis | #101 I'm sure Fabrice Muamba felt sufficiently offended and insulted by some guy's tweeting about him while he was in a coma.
No, as a matter of fact, these tweets didn't even offend the PERSON THEY WERE AIMED AT. They just offended random people who caused enough uproar to get the person jailed.
That is a lot more horrifying than some guy trolling on twitter, for me.
It's a bigger deal than Fabrice Muamba alone. Once one person puts that s*** out there more than one person can be offended by it. Like I said, racism is a social issue that transcends simple "sticks and stones" logic.
From: XIII_rocks | #108 It's an observation that doesn't require me to have read it
Are you sure you're not American? You sound a lot like our politicians when they discuss important bills.
Anyways, all of your arguments are based on the fact that saying something racist is somehow different than saying something that is just generally offensive, or stating a disagreeable opinion. We reject that notion, because the 1st amendment protects ALL speech. Once you start picking and choosing which speech is fine and which speech isn't, it's the equivalent of not protecting any speech at all.
Like, I doubt any of the Americans who have posted in this topic so far have even once questioned the possibility that a racist dickhead should spend some time in jail.
What crime has he committed?
-- _foolmo_ 'he says listen to my story this maybe are last chance' - ertyu quoting Tidus
I read an interesting theory once that basically said you guys don't have stuff like Arthurian legend, you have the founding fathers and the constitution instead. So you treat that thing with as much reverence as, say, the ten commandments (if not more), and get very protective of it as a result.
As an American, Republican, and patriot, I find this account pretty compelling. Every people needs its mythology, and in many ways the Constitution goes a step further as a quasi-religious document. The Constitution sets the groundwork a truly remarkable political framework, but it does seem a bit too sacrosanct at times (especially on the right, although the left goes too far in the other direction).
Big deal, the guy is gone for 2 months. Is he going to do it again? Almost certainly not. Success. It's not like he was given a life sentence here. In fairness, community service or something would also be an OK punishment.
You're underestimating the impact a jail sentence has on a person's life. I hope that person enjoys limited career opportunities and being ostracized the rest of his life... just for speaking his mind.
-- Tebow to Jests? http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png
From: XIII_rocks | #108 I-am I being trolled or are you being serious here?
I mean among the million things wrong with this argument, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice is actually a debate. Being pro-life/pro-choice, while a very sensitive issue, has clear and logical arguments on both sides of the spectrum. Meanwhile, there's no real excuse for racism. You don't get to justify deciding somebody deserves to die based on skin colour - it's kind of factually wrong to do that, wouldn't you agree?
Being offended by simple opinion is your problem. They shouldn't be jailed for that opinion. Racism is different and you know it.
Do you even try to apply logic to anything? No, "it's different and you know it" is not logical. Explain to me, in clear, undeniable detail, why being offended by racism is legitimate but being offended by any other thing is not (especially in the abortion debate, where you have people on both sides who would put it in the exact same ballpark as racism - one side has folks who see the other side as oppressing women, which is pretty clearly comparable to racism, and the other sees the other side as legalizing murder, which is *worse* than racism). Both sides are going to say "there's no excuse" to believe in the other as well. The only way this works is if you believe that the government should be able to decide which beliefs are legitimate to have and which are not. That is an obvious invitation to tyranny.
That's the whole problem with this debate, no one bothers to think about it. They just say "oh this is wrong so I want it banned because it feels wrong" and they don't bother to realize that the logic used for that cannot be consistently applied.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
Also XIC I am genuinely embarrassed to be an American every single day of my life. If disgusts me that I share a nationality with people like SmartMuffin and SephyG.
That I'm agreeing with them about this should tell you about the argument. Freedom of Speech is one of the few things about this country that don't make me look at the ground in abject shame.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg "You're only smoke and mirrors tonight."
It's so easy to say "being offended by this opinion is your problem" when the opinion is something you consider acceptable. It's a lot harder to decide why you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot be offended by, and to take your own interpretations and legally declare certain feelings valid and others invalid.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
From: XIII_rocks | #102 Is being so overly defensive about it that you utterly reject the possibility of some facets of it being wrong weird? Yes.
I can't believe you said this.
Like, after all that happened in this topic, you said this.
I don't think this falls under the technical definition of irony (I'm never certain any more), but under the commonly used definition? It's practically irony incarnate.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) SuperNiceDog: Guru winner
From: Emporer_Kazbar | #116 I can't believe you said this.
Like, after all that happened in this topic, you said this.
I don't think this falls under the technical definition of irony (I'm never certain any more), but under the commonly used definition? It's practically irony incarnate.
I think I am right on this issue but I do not know I am right on this issue.
That's what I'm saying; Naye described my behaviour ITT as "horrible", but all I've done is express opinion on a very complex issue (and no, I'm not going to jail for that because "you find it offensive" - those strawman arguments are dumb and show a misunderstanding of things), and it's almost as if you think I am factually wrong - that there is no debate, that there can be no debate. Which is weird to me.
I mean I accept the possibility of 100% freedom of speech being the way to go, I just think it has a lot of downsides, downsides that become more pronounced as communication becomes quicker and more instantaneous. Our method has its downsides too; I'm not denying the Kung Fu Fighting thing was idiotic (though I remember there being more to that case than met the eye), and occasionally faux pas like that happen, sure. I mean I guess I'd like some reassurance that you think this is a debate and not "you being right/me being wrong".
I'll respond to the rest later, I need to sleep for now.
From: XIII_rocks | #118 I think I am right on this issue but I do not know I am right on this issue.
That's what I'm saying; Naye described my behaviour ITT as "horrible", but all I've done is express opinion on a very complex issue (and no, I'm not going to jail for that because "you find it offensive" - those strawman arguments are dumb and show a misunderstanding of things), and it's almost as if you think I am factually wrong - that there is no debate, that there can be no debate. Which is weird to me.
I mean I accept the possibility of 100% freedom of speech being the way to go, I just think it has a lot of downsides, downsides that become more pronounced as communication becomes quicker and more instantaneous. Our method has its downsides too; I'm not denying the Kung Fu Fighting thing was idiotic (though I remember there being more to that case than met the eye), and occasionally faux pas like that happen, sure. I mean I guess I'd like some reassurance that you think this is a debate and not "you being right/me being wrong".
I'll respond to the rest later, I need to sleep for now.
I have my own feelings on this debate that are neither here nor there. My post was not referencing which side is actually right or wrong or has more going for it or what have you.
I'm just saying, you are nobody to talk about others being over-defensive of viewpoints (or documents that are the basis of viewpoints), when that's pretty much exactly what you've been doing this entire thread. Even if you didn't intend for that to be the case, it's what's been happening.
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) SuperNiceDog: Guru winner
---> People shouldn't be put in jail "simply" for making racist statements, no matter how backwards and egregious these might be. Yes, they are blatantly wrong and should be treated with contempt, but the State barging in and saying "No, you can't say that, that's offensive - go to jail/pay a fine/etc." makes me seriously uncomfortable.
Obviously, some people are going to say unquestionably offensive statements, but they still shouldn't go to jail. The danger here is not that these unquestionably racist people go to jail, it's that other, much more reasonable people might have a few interesting and relevant points to make on a certain topic, but hold back in fear of being prosecuted.
---> On the other hand, a person offended by racist remarks should be allowed to privately sue the one who made them, either for compensation, or an apology, or whatever. Court will determine the amount of compensation based on whether the guilty party committed a 'fault' and whether that led to a moral/physical damage to the person seeking redress. But the State has no place there.
---> One exception to the above that I can think of: violent speech - that is, speech specifically promoting violence against other people. In these instances, I feel like the State is entitled to come in and put an end. If I say "All Martians are stupid", I should be free from prosecution. If I say "All Martians should be put to death" and start a campaign actively promoting violence and pain to Martians, trying to convince others to kill/torture Martians simply because they are Martians, then somewhere, the State should barge in.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is pretty damn important - definitely one of the most important civil/political/constitutional/human rights there are - but not absolute.
It is a complex issue, though. I will fully and wholeheartedly disagree with anyone saying "Hurr durr, free speech should always, in all circumstances, be upheld, no matter what" (not saying anyone made that point - just bringing that upfront). Just as I will disagree with someone thinking that 'offensive' speech should always be very carefully scrutinized by the State just because of its potential to be offensive.
-- When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore
Freedom of speech is the freedom of offensive speech. Speech that is not offensive needs no protection. If you don't believe in the protection of offensive speech, you do not believe in freedom of speech.
Why do we need to protect offensive speech? Because otherwise, who will decide what is offensive?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
---> People shouldn't be put in jail "simply" for making racist statements, no matter how backwards and egregious these might be. Yes, they are blatantly wrong and should be treated with contempt, but the State barging in and saying "No, you can't say that, that's offensive - go to jail/pay a fine/etc." makes me seriously uncomfortable.
Obviously, some people are going to say unquestionably offensive statements, but they still shouldn't go to jail. The danger here is not that these unquestionably racist people go to jail, it's that other, much more reasonable people might have a few interesting and relevant points to make on a certain topic, but hold back in fear of being prosecuted.
---> On the other hand, a person offended by racist remarks should be allowed to privately sue the one who made them, either for compensation, or an apology, or whatever. Court will determine the amount of compensation based on whether the guilty party committed a 'fault' and whether that led to a moral/physical damage to the person seeking redress. But the State has no place there.
---> One exception to the above that I can think of: violent speech - that is, speech specifically promoting violence against other people. In these instances, I feel like the State is entitled to come in and put an end. If I say "All Martians are stupid", I should be free from prosecution. If I say "All Martians should be put to death" and start a campaign actively promoting violence and pain to Martians, trying to convince others to kill/torture Martians simply because they are Martians, then somewhere, the State should barge in.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is pretty damn important - definitely one of the most important civil/political/constitutional/human rights there are - but not absolute.
It is a complex issue, though. I will fully and wholeheartedly disagree with anyone saying "Hurr durr, free speech should always, in all circumstances, be upheld, no matter what" (not saying anyone made that point - just bringing that upfront). Just as I will disagree with someone thinking that 'offensive' speech should always be very carefully scrutinized by the State just because of its potential to be offensive.
Throwing someone in jail over text posted on the internet is absolutely ridiculous. This is absolute trampling of human rights by the government. I sure am glad I don't live in England.
Americans can be proud for things there not being as bad for now, but you guys never know when that'll change.
Same goes for me, of course. It's a sad world we live in. If we don't want things to go even worse, we'd better not sit on our asses.
--
If you like Blitzball, try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES! Top games: http://unikgamer.com/users/vlado-309.html
@those that argue for 100%, absolute freedom of speech, I wonder what you think should happen in these situations:
- I go to your local police station and accuse you of being a rapist and a pedo. I am blatantly lying, yet I am damn convincing and charges are pressed against you. Later on during the trial, we discover I was lying, but your reputation has been tarnished, you've already lost your job, you've spent thousands of dollars in court, etc. Should I get out scot-free?
- I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, even though there's none (and I know there's none). People panic and everybody tries to run out of the theater. A little kid is trampled to death by the rampaging crowd. Should I face the consequences of my actions?
- A hates B. I go talk to A and convince him to kill B. I suggest a murder method, provide him (orally) with a plan to do it without fail and without getting caught, repeatedly encourage him to proceed with it. A finally goes on with it, kills B, but despite my best advice, gets caught. Should I be prosecuted, even though all I've done is speaking?
-- When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore
Solfadore posted... @those that argue for 100%, absolute freedom of speech, I wonder what you think should happen in these situations:
- I go to your local police station and accuse you of being a rapist and a pedo. I am blatantly lying, yet I am damn convincing and charges are pressed against you. Later on during the trial, we discover I was lying, but your reputation has been tarnished, you've already lost your job, you've spent thousands of dollars in court, etc. Should I get out scot-free?
No, that's defamation
I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, even though there's none (and I know there's none). People panic and everybody tries to run out of the theater. A little kid is trampled to death by the rampaging crowd. Should I face the consequences of my actions?
Yes, that's inciting a riot
A hates B. I go talk to A and convince him to kill B. I suggest a murder method, provide him (orally) with a plan to do it without fail and without getting caught, repeatedly encourage him to proceed with it. A finally goes on with it, kills B, but despite my best advice, gets caught. Should I be prosecuted, even though all I've done is speaking?
Yes, that's conspiracy
No one is arguing for those actions. You're an idiot.
-- SephirothG, channeling awesomeness from Mershiness. The Resurrection
So that means freedom of speech is not 100% absolute, then? There are still some things, albeit the scope is extremely limited and narrow, that I simply can't say unless I want to commit a crime, isn't it?
Not disagreeing with you, Ashethan. Just wanted to show that it's not a completely black & white issue.
Although I do have to say that prosecuting someone or throwing them into jail simply for making offensive statements is completely and utterly wrong. 'Offensiveness' is inherently subjective, and so the State shouldn't be able to come in and say that something subjectively wrong should be punished. State should only come in when the content of the speech is 'objectively' wrong - and these situations are going to be fairly limited - violent speech, perjury, incitement to murder, etc.
-- When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore
Mershaaay posted... No one is arguing for those actions. You're an idiot.
How are these not speech? If you're saying freedom of speech is absolute and should be constitutionally protected in all cases, why are you fine with speech being trampled in the three instances I listed? Because even though these actions seem wrong and may well be qualified as 'crimes', they are only, in the end, speech.
Unless you think freedom of speech is NOT absolute, in which case I fully agree with you with the irrelevance of these examples.
-- When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore
Freedom of speech is considered absolute in the US except when it interferes with someone else's most basic rights, as it does in each of the cases you outlined.
People don't have the right not to get offended, so nothing more valuable than free speech is being compromised in the case of this a******'s tweets.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
@LordoftheMorons: Glad we agree, then. I'm not trying to defend arresting someone over racist tweets. That's ****ing stupid and unjustifiable.
@Ashethan: That's like saying the racist guys who posted offensive tweets is not arrested for his tweets, but for the deleterious effects they caused on someone else's well-being. In the end, we're still arresting the person because they said something. Even if my incitement to murder fails because the person chooses not to go through with it, I should still be punished even though nothing concrete happened - and all I've done was to talk.
-- When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore
These sorts of laws just reflect the stupid self-entitlement people have these days that they can get offended at whatever they want and it's someone else's fault. If you get offended by what someone else said, that's YOUR fault. Once you are a rational adult it is not that hard to train yourself not to take offense at anything that is said.
interesting talk on freedom of speech, I recommend it to everyone in this topic:
as far as the topic goes, I'm with S-Muf on this one and I'm sure that isn't surprising. You can be thrown in jail for denying the holocaust in Europe, for instance. Which basically means that governments there get to decide what historical truth is and punish any deviation from it. It doesn't matter whether the holocaust happened or not, you will not express an opinion that isn't backed by whatever government you live under. to me, that's just insanity. I'd rather have holocaust deniers (who are dumb awful people) than a government that gets decide what I can and can't say out loud.
From: Solfadore | #133 - I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, even though there's none (and I know there's none). People panic and everybody tries to run out of the theater. A little kid is trampled to death by the rampaging crowd. Should I face the consequences of my actions?
This is the classic example that Americans learn in elementary school to understand what Freedom of Speech actually protects. Obviously if what you say threatens the life or liberty of another person, then that is not allowed.
Maybe the difference between us and the brits is that the brits have a much looser definition of threat? So the guy in the article made some racist tweets, which incited racial tension, which eventually could turn another person into a racist murderer, therefore the tweets could cause murder and they are a threat to life?
I think my main trouble here is I have no idea how tweets can "incite racial tension". It's not like you're gonna see in future history books something like "racial tension in Europe and the UK was quickly disappearing in the early 21st century, until this guy made a bunch of racist tweets, sending the racial relations back 50 years."
-- _foolmo_ 'but that statement is something only an Aspergers patient would say' - UltimaterializerX
I think it's pretty clear that most Americans hold the Constitution up as a great document in some places and ignore the shortcomings or dismiss them
really any document that limits government power and protects individual liberties while providing a means for the population to participate democratically in decisions would be a solid framework for what America is supposed to be about.
obviously the Constitution itself has some issues. affirmation of slavery, limiting of power to a small privileged minority of elites (white male landowners), these are things that most American today would reject outright, and I think they would be correct to do so. that document and the people who crafted it were products of their time after all, and bear some weaknesses because of that.