|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 22:12:20 [Permalink]
|
Chef:
One final thought that I urge you to never let go of. |
Yes. And above I mentioned self censorship and the Danish cartoon specifically. I'm well aware of the cases you have brought up. In fact, I was at an event where Hitchens talked about those cases as his topic.
As an aside, in a panel discussion later on he talked about his support for the war in Iraq. I don't mean this as an ad hom, because I agreed with Hitchens about a whole lot of things. But he was wrong about Iraq. As a rule of thumb, it's generally not a good idea to genuflect at the alter of anyone, no matter how knowledgable or well spoken they are. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2012 : 22:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Recognizing another individual's right to free speech does not entail having to provide a platform for that person's views. I wish more ID creationists understood this.
|
They are famous for suppressing even the tiniest peep of disagreement on their own fora, so they have part of that understanding down pat.  |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 23:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
[quote] As a rule of thumb, it's generally not a good idea to genuflect at the alter of anyone, no matter how knowledgable or well spoken they are.
|
WTF?! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 23:16:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
HItchen's was NOT arguing exclusively about government censorship. If you had listened to the entire speech you would have known that. I guess you probably censored it. |
No, the 20-minute clip you linked to did not include the following:We was specifically invited by the University of Toronto's Hart House Debating
Club to voice his opinion on the subject of the evening's debate: Be It
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate. |
So I didn't censor it, you left those bits out.
And nothing Kil has proposed denies anyone the "Freedom to Hate." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 23:26:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Agreed and you said it (censorship)was only possible by Governments. |
And I mentioned several times that it is also possible through illegal coercion. Why leave that part out?| Which is what I argued against with you and provided ample reference that you are incorrect. |
No, you didn't.| I did not argue something about coercion or force... |
No, I did.| Kil and his cohort are using bullying tactic (argument ad populum)... |
No, the petition is not a logical argument.| ...to get a third party to side with them exclusively over the equal rights of others (they also did not pay and are guests in the community that is Facebook). |
So everyone on Facebook has an equal right to break Facebook rules?!| Worse than that they are doing so without the very important need of providing evidence against specific action, but rather saying that the mere act of proposing an alternative view of the holocaust is an act of hate-crime...which shows both the overzealous nature of censors and the absurdity of the term hate-crime. |
So you don't think that Facebook can make that determination?| By the way self censorship is often also brought about by the threat of force. For simple example if you are in a bar watching your team in the big game, But the bar is populated by unruly and brawny people for the other team, you may try to stifle your cheers for your own team...this is self censorship due to (imagined) threat of force. |
And it'd be illegal force. When are you going to realize that equating what Kil is doing with an illegal act or an act of government is what I'm arguing against?| If a company supervisor threatens to suspend anyone talking about organizing the workers, that is a threat of force used as censorship by one individual (they may not have company wide-approval). |
And it's also illegal. Try to come up with an example that doesn't rely on the censor violating laws, because I agree that illegal coercion is a bad thing.| When a union strike threatenes violence against discussion of going back to work as "scab" labor (actually even calling people by the term scab is censorious hate speech) that is a form of censorship by force. |
Again, the threat of violence is illegal.| The links I provided discuss specifically censorship in great length and give many real examples of censorship through means other than official government. Including but not limited to religion, private groups, individuals and the self. |
Indeed, and comparing an online petition to any of them is a massive over-reaction, since petitions are also a form of free expression. By your logic, you're trying to censor Kil! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 23:32:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
No not quite. I am objecting first to the very notion that hate-speech can be defined without arbitrary and capricious subjectivity. |
And I'm saying that Facebook can be as arbitrary and capricious as it likes. From a free-market perspective, if Facebook oversteps societal bounds, then it will fail, and that's right and just. What you are doing is trying to regulate a Web site's behavior before it even happens, which is exactly what the petition is attempting to do.| I am objecting to prejudicial labeling of all groups because some may use hateful or even violent rhetoric. |
Who has done that in this context?| Those are the specific failings of free thinking going on. |
And it looks to me like the failures are yours.| To use the host analogy, I object to a person going to the host of a party and saying, you know there are certain people here who do not agree with the consensus view of X. Some unknown number of them have even said people who believe in the consensus should be killed. I think we should kick out everyone who does not readily accept the consensus view just to be sure none of those who hate people the consensus view are left in by accident. |
So you are objecting to someone freely expressing his ideas. Got it. Apparently, you think the freedom to hate may not be enjoyed by people who agree with the consensus. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 23:40:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
One final thought that I urge you to never let go of. |
Again, show me where Kil has suggested violence against Facebook or the denialist groups, and you'll be saying something relevant.
I don't think that anyone here will disagree that threats of violence are an inappropriate response to mere speech. And your insistence on comparing an online petition to hypersensitive, murderous Muslims is also disgustingly inappropriate.
Tell me this: if I tell someone, "shut up," do you think I am violating their rights? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 00:51:04 [Permalink]
|
Gah. I just looked at Kil's Facebook threads about this. chef is busily voicing his opinions while claiming that because those same opinions have been deleted from a different Web page, his free expression has been infringed. So chef is indeed asserting that other people have a moral obligation to provide for him a platform from which to speak.
I didn't think I could be disgusted further, but that sort of egotistical entitled attitude goes way too far for even this "uber liberal."
If that's the sort of "absolute right" to free expression chef is advocating, then he should have no objections at all if I were to set up a 2000-watt audio system outside his home and play recordings of personal insults 24 hours a day. And if the neighbors were to complain to the police about the noise, chef should come out and strenuously protest when they try to shut my system down. "Don't you dare try to censor Dave," is what he should try to scream above the din, "he has an absolute right to make his opinions heard!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 22:44:39 [Permalink]
|
Any denial of expression is really censorship. If an adult invades a privately owned childrens' forum and posts pornography, removing it and banning the perpetrator is censorship. Legal, and I think, ethical and appropriate censorship. So let's not frame the possible banning of Holocaust denialists from Facebook as something other than censorship. It is.
True, "censorship" has ugly connotations, but let's call a spade a spade, then argue the differences between illegal and legal censorship, and between ethical and unethical censorship. I'd argue that censoring denialists is not only legal by a private organization, but is ethical. In fact, given the virulence of their antisemitism, I think censoring them is an ethical imperative. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/11/2012 22:45:09 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2012 : 06:02:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Any denial of expression is really censorship. If an adult invades a privately owned childrens' forum and posts pornography, removing it and banning the perpetrator is censorship. Legal, and I think, ethical and appropriate censorship. So let's not frame the possible banning of Holocaust denialists from Facebook as something other than censorship. It is.
True, "censorship" has ugly connotations, but let's call a spade a spade, then argue the differences between illegal and legal censorship, and between ethical and unethical censorship. I'd argue that censoring denialists is not only legal by a private organization, but is ethical. In fact, given the virulence of their antisemitism, I think censoring them is an ethical imperative.
|
Censorship, absolutely.
Infringing on someones right to free expression, no.
Writing to a business and requesting through a petition is exercising free expression. It is requesting censorship of a topic by an individual company and lists as its justification the TOS for the businesses forum.
On the upside, I have now been referred to as a cohort. For some odd reason, that tickles me.
And to be completely accurate, the discussion started with denial of free expression, not censorship.
Nothing is denying free expression in public forums. (Facebook is NOT a public forum. It is a private one.) No one is calling for censorship of ideas from a public forum. It is, however, requesting that Facebook (no matter how it is worded, chef, it is still a request because there is no way for the signers to enforce the request) not provide them with a forum.
They can still rage on the streetcorner or public forum. They can even get a website on an ISP (Facebook is a service, not an ISP) and post their insanity there. I'm sure that the government of Iran would possibly provide them with web server space.
I'll not weigh in on the question Kil had as I am a cohort in this matter. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 00:39:52 [Permalink]
|
| Why do some people believe we should be permitted to SAY (or communicate) anything we want but not DO anything we want. How do they not see that words can be just as powerful as actions? Freedom of expression in the form of hate-speech is far more harmful than 1 isolated hate-crime. People should not be permitted the right to verbally assault a person or people any more than they can physically do so. |
 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 08:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Why do some people believe we should be permitted to SAY (or communicate) anything we want but not DO anything we want. How do they not see that words can be just as powerful as actions? Freedom of expression in the form of hate-speech is far more harmful than 1 isolated hate-crime. People should not be permitted the right to verbally assault a person or people any more than they can physically do so.
|
The problem comes in with defining hate speech.
There are limits to free speech. Anything that urges violent acts against others is not protected speech. Anything which reduces the public safety by inducing panic is not protected speech.
Expressing that one does not like a particular group of people, expressing doubt about the bona-fides of real events, or claiming that others are morally repugnant people are protected. No matter how wrong they are.
Hate speech is different than inciting violence. There is a great deal of difference between the usage of the Klan's favorites (some terms changed) of "I hate Darkies" and "Kill all the Darkies".
One expresses an opinion (which also opens that person up to be the target of free speech denouncing what he has to say) and one urges violence against people. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 08:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Why do some people believe we should be permitted to SAY (or communicate) anything we want but not DO anything we want. How do they not see that words can be just as powerful as actions? Freedom of expression in the form of hate-speech is far more harmful than 1 isolated hate-crime. People should not be permitted the right to verbally assault a person or people any more than they can physically do so. |
Have you never heard, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me?"
Of course, we do have laws against slander, libel and defamation, but the bars are set really high for successful prosecution because speech (even unpopular or hateful speech) needs to be protected. Would you like to live in a world in which the hateful parts of the Bible are edited out by government mandate? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 13:19:11 [Permalink]
|
So Kil, I'm curious on your thoughts. How is it that when we had our own holocaust denier posting his delirium on this forum, that went on way to long, you had no apparent inclination toward implementing a ban as you appear to be promoting for FB now? I don't get it.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 17:57:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
So Kil, I'm curious on your thoughts. How is it that when we had our own holocaust denier posting his delirium on this forum, that went on way to long, you had no apparent inclination toward implementing a ban as you appear to be promoting for FB now? I don't get it.
|
Easy. Because we promote discussions and we were able to counter the claims made about holocaust denial. On facebook, the idea is recruitment. And if you don't like it, you get banned from the page. Also, we don't have a rule against hate speech. Facebook does.
And just to make it clear again, this was a protest on my part and not a way to silence unpopular thought. (Facebook allows it even as they ban nursing woman photos. Perhaps they should get their priorities straight.) Let them come here. At least there will be a debate on the subject. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hate Speech
