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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you just are.

See, now you're starting to get it. If you think that allowing speech of the kind I provided is acceptable then you're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned. Like a Libertarian, only not quite as dumb. My job is done when I get you to agree with what I believe will be viewed as a ridiculous statement

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.

Stupid argument. The speech supporting the law is supporting the idea of legalised violence/detention. First they want the law passed, then they want it applied If it goes further and urges people to take action before the law is passed then it shouldn't be allowed.

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).

See, you're just trying to change the accepted definition of words. It communicates in words, thus it is an expression by definition. It might not communicate something you think is worthy, but too ****ing bad.

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

What a dumb, overly generalised statement

Sucker.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
See, now you're starting to get it. If you think that allowing speech of the kind I provided is acceptable then you're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned. Like a Libertarian, only not quite as dumb. My job is done when I get you to agree with what I believe will be viewed as a ridiculous statement

Some people do, some people don't. I've provided cogent arguments, you've said "it's absurd".

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.

Stupid argument. The speech supporting the law is supporting the idea of legalised violence/detention. First they want the law passed, then they want it applied If it goes further and urges people to take action before the law is passed then it shouldn't be allowed.

There should be a law making it legal to lynch blacks!

See, you're just trying to change the accepted definition of words. It communicates in words, thus it is an expression by definition. It might not communicate something you think is worthy, but too ****ing bad.

political and philisophical expression. I'm sorry I don't type that all out every time

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

What a dumb, overly generalised statement

What's generalized about it?

Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it. And, in the end, what if they're right? What if the communists are correct, that violent revolution is necessary? What if the rabid anti-abortionists are right, that a fetus is sentient and abortion doctors are committing murder?

(Spare me the "illegal killing" BS - murder can just as easily be "immoral killing".)

You would fit in with UR and the PRC on Fulan Gong

[DarkCloud]

Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it. And, in the end, what if they're right? What if the communists are correct, that violent revolution is necessary? What if the rabid anti-abortionists are right, that a fetus is sentient and abortion doctors are committing murder?

Or, as an elaboration-

One might say that salty food in excess is bad for people and can lead to death--- so should we ban eating salty food? or fatty food?

Or that bicycling is dangerous for children --- so should we ban bicycling?

Or that swimming in the river is dangerous--- so should we ban swimming in the river?

Too many laws exist that protect 'people from themselves' in much the same way that a law against hate speech would...

Laws against hate speech would be created under the impression that someone's words could convince another to hate... however, it is the other person's CHOICE to listen to this hate- much like it is someone's choice to eat fatty or salty foods, or bicycle, or swim, etc.

Therefore, because laws against hate speech controvert the principle of self-autonomy and self-responsibility- they are just as silly as the lady who sued mcdonalds because she received a 'hot cup of coffee.'

[DarkCloud]

What Canadians have done is decided that expression which is likely to lead to damage (fire in the theatre, or public expression that is likely to encourage an environment of racist violence) will be unlawful. I don't think anyone pretended that our laws by themselves will stamp out racial hate (or other bigotted views).

What we are doing is saying that it is not acceptable to us, that it is a crime, and that there will be some (minor) punishment.

I'm saying that by stopping the Indian Chief from saying something like what he said will make people afraid to speak and will have a chilling effect and censorship effect far greater in damage to what could be done by preventing the chief from saying what he did- if you examine his statements as Vel did- you will see merely a statement that it 'was good that jews died' and that they are 'less than human.'

Frankly, as I stated before, it's a doublestandard for the Canadian government to ban speech like that and not to ban 'mein kampf' or even history books written pre 1950's when blacks were referred to as ******s and other 'races' were considered inferior to the whites.

So then, since those aren't considered literature- you start blocking more and more ideas.

Books ARE speech. They are considered part of speech. anyone who separates the two will find it impossible! Just like internet-writing is SPEECH, so too are books. If one can be censored, it only makes sense that the other be censored as well.

Under current american laws, almost no books can be censored by the government- even obscenity laws can't strike them down from being printed- though they can prevent them from being shown in schools for example... but the mere propogation of ideas, and thoughts cannot and should not be suppressed.

When one starts to censor speech, then one begins to force people to think a certain way- by not letting people discuss things and state them in the marketplace of ideas by presenting their views in the public square- then one is destroying the very foundations of freedom.

--
And as for your refutation of my quoted article about suppression of hate speech leading to Hitler gaining power- I would think that would be an even better argument to allow hate speech to exist- only by allowing the idiots to speak and not to be able to state 'everyone is against me because I am right' and that 'the govenrment is oppressing me' can the society be able to see what idiots those people truly are.

And once again about the internet free-speech items-
What is the demarcation between making a speech in public and making a speech on the internet- the internet is public too. Just as many people can read things there. It is ludicrous to expect people to ban speech in person but not on the net as the medium becomes more and more widespread.

Heck- China can already request Google to not display certain search results... and some sites requested and sued not to be listed by google- the technology is there to make 'sites disappear.'... What's to stop the government from doing so in the name of a 'safer society'?

I mean, ban hate speech and everyone will be safer, right?

I think that Germany's experience has taught us that lesson is false.

[Velociryx]

What's worse, is if I'm understanding the argument presented by the other side correctly, there would have been no harm, no foul if the man had simply said:

"Do you know what I heard!? I heard someone say that the jews were a disease and that hitler did a good thing by frying them up!"

By even casually referencing the "hated" speech as someone else's quote, suddenly it's okay? (and if not, then our mentioning his words here, in this forum, is every bit as illegal as the original speakers). That's absurd. The same words were spoken, and if they were truly that magically powerful, potent, evil things, then the expected effects must be considered the same.

But they're not, and the law can't even function within its own confines.

Of course, this is not surprising, because the PURPOSE of the law is not to make society "safer" from those who mean to cause harm, any more than a zero tolerance policy against knives at school which brings about the explusion of a 6th grader who brings a plastic knife in his lunchbox to spread mayo serves any sort of purpose to make schools safer.

It's about control. The bizzare, neurotic NEED for control, based on the irrational fear that people can't think or fend for themselves.

And it's nonsense.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it.

One wonders if you would be so nonchalant about the harm if it were your churches being burned, your grave sites being desecrated, and people who were visibly of your group being attacked for simply belonging to your ethnic-religious group.

That is the case with the Jewish population in Canada at the moment. Not very many, no, but one such act is one too many.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

I'm saying that by stopping the Indian Chief from saying something like what he said will make people afraid to speak and will have a chilling effect and censorship effect far greater in damage to what could be done by preventing the chief from saying what he did- if you examine his statements as Vel did- you will see merely a statement that it 'was good that jews died' and that they are 'less than human.'

Frankly, as I stated before, it's a doublestandard for the Canadian government to ban speech like that and not to ban 'mein kampf' or even history books written pre 1950's when blacks were referred to as ******s and other 'races' were considered inferior to the whites.

Mein Kampf is a historically significant document. Try publishing your own version today, or starting a political movement based on it.

So then, since those aren't considered literature- you start blocking more and more ideas.

Books ARE speech. They are considered part of speech. anyone who separates the two will find it impossible! Just like internet-writing is SPEECH, so too are books. If one can be censored, it only makes sense that the other be censored as well.

Yes, and?

Canadians have decided that expression that contributes to racial or otherwise bigotted intolerance is not acceptable. Books, movies, and the internet included. Your point, other than your thinking that making hate speech illegal will result in some sinister spirit of repression suddenly overtaking Canadian society?

What? Canadians are all of a sudden going to go beserk and start bashing on science, or religion, or seals? Erm, nevermind the seals.

Under current american laws, almost no books can be censored by the government- even obscenity laws can't strike them down from being printed- though they can prevent them from being shown in schools for example... but the mere propogation of ideas, and thoughts cannot and should not be suppressed.

Who cares what the US does? Do you care that the Brits agree with us and have similar laws?

I'll call your US Constitution and raise you a Commonwealth and a German Federal Republic.

When one starts to censor speech, then one begins to force people to think a certain way- by not letting people discuss things and state them in the marketplace of ideas by presenting their views in the public square- then one is destroying the very foundations of freedom.

Pish. We are censoring rascist violence, not Mary Popins, or the Kama Sutra. We, and you too, 'censor' expressions leading to a crime (conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, etc.). We lock people up when they get caught talking about it. Oh my!

Rascist violence is a crime as well, and encouraging it is illegal in Canada, and elsewhere. What's taking so long for the Yanks to get with the 21st century?

Racist violence belongs in the marketplace of ideas about as much as fraud does in the marketplace of currencies.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What's worse, is if I'm understanding the argument presented by the other side correctly, there would have been no harm, no foul if the man had simply said:

From what you say, I don't think you're understanding the situation in Canada correctly.

[Velociryx]

So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

But of course you're right. I'm not in Canada, I'm not Canadian, and I'm not speaking from that perspective.

I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself.

Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl.

That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed.

Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit.

Hardly.

I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone?

May as well unbuild the cities right now if you carry the thinking to its logical conclusion.

Which is why I stand by my earlier statements.

-=Vel=-

[Last Conformist]

Since when is being tolerant a good in itself?

And no, we can't outlaw everything that might hurt someone. It does not follow we can't or shouldn't outlaw anything that might hurt someone.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself.

Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl.

That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed.

Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit.

Hardly.

I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work. I can demand others to be tolerant as well. And if they are not, and if there are harming people with their intolerance then they have to face the consequences, at least in certain cases. There's is nothing hypocritical in that view, since everyone has to accept the same line, the same consequences.....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
One wonders if you would be so nonchalant about the harm if it were your churches being burned, your grave sites being desecrated, and people who were visibly of your group being attacked for simply belonging to your ethnic-religious group.

One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds. Yes, I would probably feel differently were that tha case. Yes, I probably would support the death penalty if a friend had been raped and murdered. Doesn't make either of them right. (Though I actually am not against the DP.)

That is the case with the Jewish population in Canada at the moment. Not very many, no, but one such act is one too many.

Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

Are the acts the result of riots started by a public speaker, or people who read the words on their own?[/serious question]

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

What school of thought? It isn't that dumbass antisemitism is something like an accepted philosophy.....and by accepted I don't mean politically accepted, but as reasonable idea or concept grounded on facts.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

The end of the sentence seems to be missing ...

Anyway, the notion it invalidates democracy is ridiculous. It's illiberal, but not undemocratic.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

Read the actual words of the law that I posted and you will get your answer, and discover why you are wrong.

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

First off, as mentioned before there is no hypocrisy in saying that I believe in freedom, but I believe that criminals should be jailed, and denied their freedom, for their crimes.

The fact that people praise tolerance does not mean they have to tolerate intolerant behaviour.

Secondly, you say "might" lead to violence. This is wrong. As has been said many times, violence caused by hate propaganda is a routine occurance.

Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone?

And what kind of society do we have when we allow people to advocate violence against others, and that violence is carried out.

You can live in your dream world where your incredible powers of persuasion will convert the violent racists, but the rest of us live in a real world.