The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So only speech that doesn't present philosophical or political ideas should not be protected?

Try reading my earlier posts... to prohibit types of speech falling in that category isn't an absolute evil.

What about: this man in this picture performs abortions. Abortion is murder. To protect the rights of the innocent unborn it would therefore be right to kill this man.

Sure, why not?

[KrazyHorse]

Free speech is abridged when the speech is designed to elicit others to commit violence.

Not simply because it doesn't rise to the level, in your mind, of being a valid expression of thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Try reading my earlier posts... to prohibit types of speech falling in that category isn't an absolute evil.



Sure, why not?

Reductio ad absurdum in one post

Thank you.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not talking about the current laws and precedent... I'm talking about how I think it should be.

xpost

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Reductio ad absurdum in one post

Thank you.

Demonstrate why it's absurd.

Reread my earlier posts.

Some quotes:

I agree on limitations on venue, such as in immediate incitement to violence - like someone in a city trying to start a riot - but the speaker should be free to express his ideas in some other forum.

but the police can step in if it looks like it's about to turn into actual violence.

[Kuciwalker]

The only reason to ban a particular type of expression is because you are afraid someone might be convinced of its truth. Such a ban is a form of thought policing.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't have to read your earlier posts.

You're wrong, because in my mind allowing speech of the kind I just gave you an example of is more detrimental to society than is forbidding it.

Speech which specifically condones violence against groups or individuals and is liable to lead to such violence is not simply speech, but rises to the level of an action.

The action is what is legislated, not the speech.

Which is, of course, why it is context-specific. Yelling "fire" at the theater is prohibited. Yelling "fire" at the beach is not.

However, any public utterance of the kind I gave is liable to lead to violence

Which is why your reasoning is absurd.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The only reason to ban a particular type of expression is because you are afraid someone might be convinced of its truth. Such a ban is a form of thought policing.

No it isn't. It's a form of speech policing.

Furthermore, it only polices speech which, by it's intended effects constitutes action.

Trying to convince people to lynch somebody for a political reason is just as illegal as is trying to get them to lynch somebody for no political reason.

"We should burn that black man over there because blacks commit crimes and are a drain on our society" is no more protected than "we should burn that ****** because I hate ******s"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't have to read your earlier posts.

You're wrong, because in my mind allowing speech of the kind I just gave you an example of is more detrimental to society than is forbidding it.

Atheists shouldn't be allowed to spread their words - the mere proposal that one should doubt God will inevitably lead to some Good Christians doubting their Lord and going to Hell. And nonconformance to the majority's religious beliefs is very detrimental to society, in my mind.

Speech which specifically condones violence against groups or individuals and is liable to lead to such violence is not simply speech, but rises to the level of an action.

Actually, action on that speech is what rises to the level of action.

What about the speech "we ought to jail/execute people who commit fraud"?

OMG VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS!!!!

The action is what is legislated, not the speech.

Which is, of course, why it is context-specific. Yelling "fire" at the theater is prohibited. Yelling "fire" at the beach is not.

As I said, I don't care. In my mind, that's not expression and I'm not arguing about it.

However, any public utterance of the kind I gave is liable to lead to violence

Not if there are police around to prevent said violence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No it isn't. It's a form of speech policing.

It is desiged to prevent people from having certain thoughts... therefore, it is thought policing.

Furthermore, it only polices speech which, by it's intended effects constitutes action.

Actually, the intended effect is what is action.

"We should burn that black man over there because blacks commit crimes and are a drain on our society" is no more protected than "we should burn that ****** because I hate ******s"

I know that, and I think it's a shame. Both should be allowed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Atheists shouldn't be allowed to spread their words - the mere proposal that one should doubt God will inevitably lead to some Good Christians doubting their Lord and going to Hell. And nonconformance to the majority's religious beliefs is very detrimental to society, in my mind.

This is your counterexample?

Thank you for proving my point. There are unprovable statements in any moral philosophy. I demonstrated that your "principle" allows speech which I (and I think most other reasonable people) find too inflammatory and directly liable to cause violence to be protected.

I don't have to prove that your statement is morally absurd; it just is.

Actually, action on that speech is what rises to the level of action.

Wrong. The legal principle is that words can constitute action in this context.

What about the speech "we ought to jail/execute people who commit fraud"?

OMG VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS!!!!

Pardon me. Please substitute the words "illegal violence" for each time I said violence. I thought that was clear to even the dullest mind.

As I said, I don't care. In my mind, that's not expression and I'm not arguing about it.

Thanks for completely missing the point. The example was there to demonstrate the fact that the speech has different likely effects in different situations, thus what is legislated is the inherent action in the speech, not the speech itself.

Not if there are police around to prevent said violence.

I'm glad they've prevented it so well that no abortion doctor has ever been murdered for being an abortion doctor.

Kuci, kuci, kuci

This is so easy it's almost like arguing with Ben

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It is desiged to prevent people from having certain thoughts... therefore, it is thought policing.

And so are messages from the government like "stay in school" and don't do drugs"



Doesn't make it "thought policing"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is your counterexample?

Thank you for proving my point. There are unprovable statements in any moral philosophy. I demonstrated that your "principle" allows speech which I (and I think most other reasonable people) find too inflammatory and directly liable to cause violence to be protected.

Actually, it shows how hollow your case is.

Throughout any era, the same argument - that some speech will convince people of some truth, and therefore they will believe/do something bad, and this is harmful, therefore the speech should be prohibited - to try and prevent every advance towards political and social justice in history.

I don't have to prove that your statement is morally absurd; it just is.

I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you just are.

Wrong. The legal principle is that words can constitute action in this context.

And after at least three posts specifically denying it, do you think I agree with the legal principle? If I did, would I be arguing?

Pardon me. Please substitute the words "illegal violence" for each time I said violence. I thought that was clear to even the dullest mind.

It's not legal until the law against fraud is passed. So prior to a law against X that results in imprisonment/execution, speech supporting the law should be banned.

As I said, I don't care. In my mind, that's not expression and I'm not arguing about it.

Thanks for completely missing the point. The example was there to demonstrate the fact that the speech has different likely effects in different situations, thus what is legislated is the inherent action in the speech, not the speech itself.

Thanks for missing the point that I don't have a problem with this logic when we aren't talking about expression (though I don't agree that there is an "inherent action" in the speech).

However, any public utterance of the kind I gave is liable to lead to violence

I'm glad they've prevented it so well that no abortion doctor has ever been murdered for being an abortion doctor.

Better the police occasionally fail than ideas be suppressed in the name of safety.

This is so easy it's almost like arguing with Ben

Only in your own mind.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And so are messages from the government like "stay in school" and don't do drugs"



Doesn't make it "thought policing"

Actually, it does. I think such things are relaxed when you are talking about instruction of minors...

[Asher]

Can we please go back to making fun of the tool?

This threadjack is boring.