You think the Dutch team wants some fans to have the right to make monkey noises at their black players?
I can't speak for the team as a whole, but I suspect, from their measured responses, that they accept their right to make a "monkey noise"--and wish wholeheartedly for this to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehMax
You think hate speech is just saying things that "aren't nice". These are ridiculous conclusions.
No. Hate speech is appalling. Still, I will defend the right of people hate others, no matter how difficult that is for me. This is a difficult test of democracy--to defend free speech for those you disagree vehemently with. I will not, however, defend the infliction of violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehMax
With free speech, yes, you are free to say these things. You are free to not have a clue what hate speech / hate propaganda is, in that yes, they contain very explicit threats of violence and wanting genocide of the group that they hate.
If they say they will kill or hang somebody, then this is the promise to commit a crime of violence. We have laws for that already. It is not a free speech issue. You continue to attempt to couple free speech with an implicit promise to kill, maim or hang somebody--this is weak reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDL
Interesting that a rugged individualist can't see the difference between hating a person, which is perfectly legal and hating a person because that person is a member of an identifiable group and against the law.
When the hatred is based solely upon that person being a member of that identifiable group this act of freedom harms another person(s).
No. Harming people harms them. Hating them--no matter how reprehensible the hatred is, or how specific that hatred is--does not.
__________________
"My life is my own."
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
I can't speak for the team as a whole, but I suspect, from their measured responses, that they accept their right to make a "monkey noise"--and wish wholeheartedly for this to stop.
No. Hate speech is appalling. Still, I will defend the right of people hate others, no matter how difficult that is for me. This is a difficult test of democracy--to defend free speech for those you disagree vehemently with. I will not, however, defend the infliction of violence.
If they say they will kill or hang somebody, then this is the promise to commit a crime of violence. We have laws for that already. It is not a free speech issue. You continue to attempt to couple free speech with an implicit promise to kill, maim or hang somebody--this is weak reasoning.
No. Harming people harms them. Hating them--no matter how reprehensible the hatred is, or how specific that hatred is--does not.
Macfury, I agree with all four of your points. Well said, mon ami. Paix.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
NOTICE: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these ad links. Don't click on them.
Have to say that MF is dead right on all counts. That is the reality, missed by others who may be allowing emotion to rule their opinions.
Agreed, Sinc. Still, it makes my blood boil when I listen to the rants of neo-nazis or Holocaust deniers. However, that is the price I pay for being a Canadian and living in a society that recognizes that they are free to rant their hatred so long as it does not incite others to do violence against individuals or groups of people. Paix, mon ami.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
I, like you Dr. G., have no use for those kind, but do not dispute their right to express contrary views in a free society as long as it is done peacefully without threats or violence.
NOTICE: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these ad links. Don't click on them.
I, like you Dr. G., have no use for those kind, but do not dispute their right to express contrary views in a free society as long as it is done peacefully without threats or violence.
Well, I see their point, Sinc, but I still feel that regardless of my concerns, I would rather have the right to express my views freely if it means letting others express their views as well.
Paix, mon ami.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
I am not convinced. Don't we give up some rights as a part of being a member of an organized society (as opposed to an every-man-for-himself anarchy)? We give up these freedoms in order to live longer, safer lives; to protect minority groups; to manage risk, and other benefits I am sure...
It would be perfectly reasonable for a society to hold its members to speaking responsibly and respectfully; or at least to hold some subjects as being off-limits, like child porn and libel. I can picture 'hate' crimes falling into this category.
I don't know, maybe I am getting confused between hateful and inciteful behavior. However, if it is confusing for me, imagine how our children are supposed to make sense of the hateful rants of a white supremacist high-school instructor?
It seems a grey area that might benefit from some policy or legislation.
I am not convinced. Don't we give up some rights as a part of being a member of an organized society (as opposed to an every-man-for-himself anarchy)? We give up these freedoms in order to live longer, safer lives; to protect minority groups; to manage risk, and other benefits I am sure...
The beauty is that you can give these up yourself, without waiting for others to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouverdave
It would be perfectly reasonable for a society to hold its members to speaking responsibly and respectfully; or at least to hold some subjects as being off-limits, like child porn and libel. I can picture 'hate' crimes falling into this category.
Speaking about child porn is not against the law. Libel involves proof of damages. You are free to say what you want, but if you have libeled someone, you may be forced to pay damages for what you have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouverdave
I don't know, maybe I am getting confused between hateful and inciteful behavior. However, if it is confusing for me, imagine how our children are supposed to make sense of the hateful rants of a white supremacist high-school instructor?
School boards have made such decisions all along, determining what a teacher may do in public before it becomes impossible to employ them as effective teachers. While the teacher has a right to free speech, he or she does not have the right to be employed, regardless of what they do in their private lives.
__________________
"My life is my own."
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
Last edited by Macfury; Jun 10th, 2012 at 07:24 PM.
Linear Mode
