|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It seems that you're suggesting that unless someone's words can be proven to be a 'pivotal factor' in someone's decision to commit a crime, then no harm, no foul. If this is indeed the case, I then have to ask what you make of anti-hate speech laws in the West. |
I am completely opposed to those laws. |
There is a difference between hate speech and threatening speech.
IYO, which ones are okay (on a free speech level) and which ones are not okay (again, on a free speech level)?
--Fred "fags are going to hell" Phelps
--"I hope someone kills all the gays"
--"I'm going to kill all the gays"
--"I'm going to blow up that gay church"
--"If another gay guy touches me again, I'm going to kill him!!!"
--"I'm going to kill that gay guy!!!" (with gun in hand)
Is the line ever crossed? In other words, when does speech cease to be merely "hate speech" and become criminal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
IYO, which ones are okay (on a free speech level) and which ones are not okay (again, on a free speech level)?
(1)--Fred "*beep* are going to hell" Phelps
(2)--"I hope someone kills all the gays"
(3)--"I'm going to kill all the gays"
(4)--"I'm going to blow up that gay church"
(5)--"If another gay guy touches me again, I'm going to kill him!!!"
(6)--"I'm going to kill that gay guy!!!" (with gun in hand)
|
(numbers are mine)
Number 1 is not incitement, since Phelps is not demanding that anyone send gays to hell, he's just saying that that is where god is gonna send them. I suppose you COULD argue that it's a threat, but I would assume that a threat can only be made by someone in a position to carry out the foretold actions.
2, 3, 4, and 5 would depend on the context. I'd need more detail about who said it to whom, and under what circumstances.
Number 6 is probably a threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
All the arguments in this thread presuppose that democracy is the correct way to organize society. Curiously, undemocratically, you appear to accept that there are not any alternatives. There ARE alternatives. Democracy, equality = extinction.
What this thread boils down to is secular societies' toleration for religion. I personally support totally anti-democratic, forced secularization of the entire planet. The West has enough thermonuclear weapons to destroy every planet in the Solar System, yet we find ourselves at the ransom of absolute cavemen on our own planet.
The biggest disease on this planet is the religion of democracy. The case in favour of anti-democratic politics is so overwhelming I refuse to discuss it because it's too long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
All the arguments in this thread presuppose that democracy is the correct way to organize society. Curiously, undemocratically, you appear to accept that there are not any alternatives. There ARE alternatives. Democracy, equality = extinction.
What this thread boils down to is secular societies' toleration for religion. I personally support totally anti-democratic, forced secularization of the entire planet. The West has enough thermonuclear weapons to destroy every planet in the Solar System, yet we find ourselves at the ransom of absolute cavemen on our own planet.
The biggest disease on this planet is the religion of democracy. The case in favour of anti-democratic politics is so overwhelming I refuse to discuss it because it's too long. |
That's not true. My argument presupposes the virtues of anarchy.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
All the arguments in this thread presuppose that democracy is the correct way to organize society. Curiously, undemocratically, you appear to accept that there are not any alternatives. There ARE alternatives. Democracy, equality = extinction.
What this thread boils down to is secular societies' toleration for religion. I personally support totally anti-democratic, forced secularization of the entire planet. The West has enough thermonuclear weapons to destroy every planet in the Solar System, yet we find ourselves at the ransom of absolute cavemen on our own planet.
The biggest disease on this planet is the religion of democracy. The case in favour of anti-democratic politics is so overwhelming I refuse to discuss it because it's too long. |
Ahhh, Spinoza, so cynical and jaded...regarding Democracy:
| Quote: |
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
British politician (1874 - 1965) |
Always one of my favorites.
As to the topic of this thread, another fun quote supports some of the arguments by unitarian and the other hand:
| Quote: |
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956) |
We want free speech, we get free speech, "good and hard!" Problem is, we don't always want it that way and our delicate sensibilities become offended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ...when does speech cease to be merely "hate speech" and become criminal? |
Huff, speech becomes criminal when it defines a clear threat to someone or something. Just making sweeping threats against vague or amorphous groups does not explicitly violate an individual's rights (criminal) but may violate a group's rights (hate speech).
To use your examples (with other hand's numbers):
| Quote: |
IYO, which ones are okay (on a free speech level) and which ones are not okay (again, on a free speech level)?
(1)--Fred "*beep* are going to hell" Phelps
(2)--"I hope someone kills all the gays"
(3)--"I'm going to kill all the gays"
(4)--"I'm going to blow up that gay church"
(5)--"If another gay guy touches me again, I'm going to kill him!!!"
(6)--"I'm going to kill that gay guy!!!" (with gun in hand) |
1 is clearly just ridulous spouting off.
2 see 1 above (a statement of hoping someone else commits a crime is not a crime- check out how many "radio personalities" in the US have made similar such declaritive statements about just about everyone, including politicians).
3 not really a crime, but if the speaker eventually carries out an attack against someone that he considers "gay" the statement would be used to establish premeditation.
4 a direct threat to an establishment, therefore a crime.
5 just a vague and general threat that again is not a crime (how many times have you said something similar- "I'm gonna kill the next guy that makes fun of my bad haircut" or "the next guy that cuts me off," etc.)
6 a clear and definite threat of aggravated violence, hence clearly a crime
To answer your earlier question, "crossing the line" from hate speech to criminal action involves a clearly defined threat. Free speech protects knuckleheads that want to spout ridiculous hate, as long as they do not explicitly threaten a direct action.
At least in the US. In the UK, it appears, the political environment seems to have turned the term "political correctness" on its head- instead of applying to the concept of expansive acceptance of non-traditional ideas and groups, it now appears to be a towing of the main cultural line. It seems it is no longer "correct" to espouse arguments opposed to those held by the main populace. It is "politically correct" to think any statement of hyperbole, or even vague general threatening rhetoric, is inciting of violence.
I hope we don't degenerate to the point where "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!" becomes a felony. It seems the UK is headed that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alffy:
We're in basic agreeent I think. However...
| Quote: |
| I hope we don't degenerate to the point where "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!" |
Is that really a good example of non-threatening hyperbole that no can be expected to take seriously?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Were this to have happened in the US, I believe the law would go something like this:
1) Seditious statements are illegal, meaning you can't call for the govt. to be overthrown or for the death of the head of state.
2) Statements that could be perceived as threatening, harrassing, or abusive toward fellow citizens would very likely leave the speaker open to prosecution.
However, I believe this is the key to the situation in the OP:
| Quote: |
| LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A British Muslim was convicted on Friday of soliciting murder by calling at a London protest for the United States and Denmark to be bombed. |
Not that I support his point of view in any way, shape, or form, but I don't think caling for attacks on a foreign country are prosecutable, at least under American law.
In this respect, I don't think it matters what kind of bombing he's referring to. To follow such logic would be like saying that it's ok to call for the firebombing of a city but it's not ok to call for guerilla strikes on the same target.
Not that I know much about hate speech laws in Britain, so I can't say much about his exact legal situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ...when does speech cease to be merely "hate speech" and become criminal? |
To answer your earlier question, "crossing the line" from hate speech to criminal action involves a clearly defined threat. Free speech protects knuckleheads that want to spout ridiculous hate, as long as they do not explicitly threaten a direct action. |
That's a good starting point. But we have to determine at what point the threat is explicit. In isolation, the threats that were made may not have been overly explicit. In the context of the environment, they could be construed as explicit.
At the very least, I think the authorities have not just a right, but a duty, to further investigate the credibility of those threats. It may be seen as an infringement on absolute free speech, but there has never really been a standard of absolute free speech in America. Just as there is no absolute freedom of the press, separation of church and state, right to bear arms, and any other freedoms that exists.
| Quote: |
| At least in the US. In the UK, it appears, the political environment seems to have turned the term "political correctness" on its head- instead of applying to the concept of expansive acceptance of non-traditional ideas and groups, it now appears to be a towing of the main cultural line. It seems it is no longer "correct" to espouse arguments opposed to those held by the main populace. It is "politically correct" to think any statement of hyperbole, or even vague general threatening rhetoric, is inciting of violence. |
I disagree. PC is about acceptance of non-traditional ideas as long as they do not cross certain boundaries. PC has taken the interpretation of those boundaries out of the hands of the speaker and given it to others.
| Quote: |
| I hope we don't degenerate to the point where "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!" becomes a felony. |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
