The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2018, 09:41 AM   #1
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Britain ending free speech

In case our non-Brits were not aware:

Previously a comedian filmed his girlfriend's pug giving a Nazi salute, in a hilarious style, and was charged with hate crimes

Yesterday a girl posted Snoop Dogg lyrics to Instagram and is charged with hate crimes

Context? PURPOSEFULLY IGNORED. Intent? NOT CONSIDERED.

This is using Fascist approaches to fight Fascism. How far will it go?

The other day an old friend of mine (who is British, working in the US) said that he considers Nazis and Capitalists to be "sub-human". After a few days of thinking about it, I realized the full implications of what he said. And how horrible it is that he believes it. Classing your enemies as sub-human? In 2018? It's one of the most alarming things I've ever heard someone say. In our tribal era, I expect to hear a lot more of it.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 09:48 AM   #2
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Can you get arrested for hating hate crimes?
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 09:55 AM   #3
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
The second case with the girl posting rap lyrics is ludicrous. It is clearly not the intended target of hate speech laws.

The first one was pretty predictable given we have had laws about that sort of thing since the mid-80s. Posting a video where a dog does nazi salutes in response to someone saying 'gas the jews' would have drawn prosecution at any time in the last 30 years, had that sort of thing been possible. Distributing that same scenario in cartoon form on leaflets would have put you at risk of prosecution - telling it as a joke on stage - whether the authorities wuol have chosen to pursue a prosecution or not is a bit of a moot point, but the legal framework was there - and the potentially anti-semitic nature of it (as opposed to, say, a paki joke) would have made that far more likely.


This is not a case of Britain ending free speech - this is new media bringing individual, user-made content to a mainstream audience and butting up against very well-established laws.



As to your second point - labelling your opponent as sub-human is a frightening direction to go in. There is no good outcome to that sort of thinking.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 12:20 PM   #4
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
It's the prelude to a Free Speech Tax.

You'll have to have a Snoop Dogg user-made content party.

That's when you counter-accuse the government of dog/Dogg hate crimes and dump their censorship into the Channel.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2018, 06:01 PM   #5
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
When is the last time somebody paid to speak freely? And how much money did it cost?
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2018, 08:50 PM   #6
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
We already pay the public safety costs collectively through our taxes. The point is, there're those who would have it happen, one way or another, more selectively. For instance those who attempted to do so in Pennsylvania last year. You must've forgot.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...ay-free-speech
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2018, 10:28 AM   #7
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Nazi pug video results in £800 fine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8317751.html
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2018, 10:45 AM   #8
lumberjim
I can hear my ears
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 25,571
if he monetized his youtube video, he may have earned more than that with all the publicity
__________________
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
Embrace this moment, remember
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan
lumberjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2018, 11:01 AM   #9
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
I imagine he'd be paying a lot higher fine if he had left it up.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2018, 01:52 PM   #10
Flint
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
Undertoad, thoughts on Fosta / Sesta ??

https://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=1006827

I would have thought, highly germane to someone running an open, public forum?
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2018, 07:17 PM   #11
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
I haven't put much time in on it, and can't definitively say which side I'd wind up on. I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.

~

This is not an open forum. It's moderated. Sex trafficking is strictly forbidden. Rule number one: "Do not try to break the law using the Cellar". It's rule number one for reasons!

~

There is some confusion over what is meant by freedom of speech. Having certain rights doesn't allow us to violate other people's rights. The example always given is, you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater.

Because the limit on freedom of speech is whether it affects other rights, the fact that you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater is not a dilution of freedom of speech. It's a protect of all our rights.

UNLESS we invent new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2018, 06:28 AM   #12
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
I was pretty susceptible to libertarian slippery slopism. I see the world differently now, more of an ongoing negotiation. If we screw up, we can change course.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2018, 12:40 PM   #13
Flint
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
This is using Fascist approaches to fight Fascism. How far will it go?
...
... full implications ... most alarming ... I expect to hear a lot more of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2018, 03:01 PM   #14
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
...I anticipated that objection, which is why I specified what nasty is: inventing new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

It's not a slippery slope, it's a problem right now: people are being prosecuted right now for saying things.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2018, 05:29 PM   #15
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
...I anticipated that objection, ... such as the right not to be offended.
Actual problem is rarely discussed. Why is Trump so popular? Because he is routinely offensive. Most adults respect a bully; not the honest and informed. Throughout history, that is how ignorant bullies - who are destructive to their supporters - are so popular and gain so much support and power.

It goes right back to a fundamental problem. Many adults are still children. They make conclusions from their emotions - fail to use a pre-frontal cortex.

An adult acting like an adult will first collect facts and then make a logical conclusion. Supporters of bullies make an immediate conclusion from their emotions. Automatically believe a first thing told. And then are so emotional as to deny any realities and facts that expose the lie.

We all saw this with Saddam's WMDs. Facts clearly stated WMDs did not exist. But fears, lies, and other emotional hype even claimed Saddam was a threat to the US mainland.

Obviously that was impossible. Even countries adjacent to Iraq said he was not a threat. But emotions were embedded in so many who made decisions based only in their fears and other emotions.

That explains why offensive speech is so dangerous. Even successfully used by Hitler to define Jews as evil. It was so easily used by Hitler to justify racism - a superior blue eyed, blond haired superior German race. Those lies were believed because so many adults thought emotionally like children.

Obviously those claims were bogus to adults who were thinking like adults. It also explains the entrenched and obviously ignorant support for The Donald.

It is not just Trump who plays this emotion card. Bernie Sanders was doing same. Yes, his objectives were admirable. But his solutions had no basis in reality. Even his supporters, when challenged to explain their support, would recite myths. A classic one was the Federal Reserve is a private corporation harmful to the economy.

Tea Party was created on another lie - that TARP was evil to enrich the elitists (ie Rockefellers). Basic economics were irrelevant to their emotions. Many adults think like children - making offensive speech so dangerous.

So we address offensive speech rather then the reason why offensive speech creates so much evil. Unfortunately, it is not possible to require adults to think like adults - even if they use emotions to create a crime - like the launch of the Challenger. It usually takes something like murder (ie drag racing on public streets) to address this problem.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.