Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope. I know history is more complex than that but that's how it was articulated then and it's the frame for our political culture.

Manchu wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.

W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.

¬¬ Like's been said before, its not that people are being offensive, its why their being offensive. You shouldn't be allowed to insult someone just for what they are. If people think they can call someone a derrogitory name for no reason then that breeds a notion that those types of people can be treated like your lessers. In America someone from a non-European heritage is killed and its not even a foot note in the local papers, the opposite happens and its front line news and your all up in arms about it. When you can get away by preaching those kind of things then its not long before they actually happen (quicker still because in the case of the US you can buy a handgun in your local supermarket).

Wyrmalla, your charactization of the American press is waaaaaaaaaaay off.

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope.

Well, I'd counter that your country exists becuse of a wealthy merchant class based in the north-east that resented paying taxes on their goods, despite the British taxpayer footing the bill for the colonies' prior defence from the French. The freedom you currently enjoy is due to British sacrifice - if the French had overtaken the 13 colonies, your legal system would be completely different, and your constitution would be unrecognisable. Not that Yanks let any of that get in the way of a little brit-bashing of course.

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope. I know history is more complex than that but that's how it was articulated then and it's the frame for our political culture.

I don't exactly think that was his point, but then again I'll just refer you to a previous post noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way. Honestly we don't think of your war for Independance all the time we think of the US, its well in the past. We're allies now, don't let an old grudge that we're all since over feck with that. ¬¬

@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain? Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point.

Manchu wrote:Wyrmalla, your charactization of the American press is waaaaaaaaaaay off.

American Press? I was thinking more of close minded, overly patriotic conservatives that allow stupid issues cloud what the real issues are all the time. =P

Wyrmalla wrote:... noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way.

That's bizarre! I don't know how your way of doing things would affect ours. I just am glad that yours is yours and ours is ours, which I reckon is what you think, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:American Press? I was thinking more of close minded, overly patriotic conservatives that allow stupid issues cloud what the real issues are all the time. =P

But what you mentioned was how American newspapers report the killing of minorities by whites and you could not have been more wrong.

Manchu wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:... noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way.

That's bizarre! I don't know how your way of doing things would affect ours. I just am glad that yours is yours and ours is ours, which I reckon is what you think, too.

You seemed to be putting across that we were all really strung up about you becoming independant, which was inevitable, and like to get a little dig in against you whenever possible-ie the regulating of our rights rather than the free for all you have. =/

Anyhow, I'm just referring you to the stereotype that the rest of the world gets clued into. Hey internet bloggers over there mention it all the time, so I would assume its an issue. Then again, I doubt that the death of one kid of african descent would lead to riots across half your country like it did ours (okay, there was more to the riots in England than that, but biased references seem to be the in thing), but youknow different cultures.

Nah, I don't think anybody in the UK is angry about the American Revolution.

This country has gone PC mad. Yeah its not nice to have ago at some one for race or sex or whatever cos they all get offended. If some one calls me something and i get offended no one cares. So why should other people be able to do it and what really bugs me is that if a white guy was being slated by a black guy feth all would be done about it. Im not racist I will point out its just the lop sided crap that fills this hole that annoys me.

So yeah some one offends you. Get over it.

RE: Free speech in the United States

It isn't free in an absolute sense. Certain levels of vulgarity, "fighting words", and other exceptions have been carved out over the years. That said, I prefer to hear things that I might rather not hear, than to have some "enlightened" group of souls given authority to decide that for me.

I'll quote one of my favorite Englishmen.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." - GK Chesterton

One might say that the United States is immature socially to allow horrible words and ideas to be flung about by deplorable people. I would reply that we are simply mature enough to handle it. Does that incur a cost? Yes. Nearly everything has a cost of some sort. But, since I am quoting Chesterton already,

"There are no wise few. Every aristrocracy that has existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob."

While a republic, as a form of government, essentially chooses "wise few" to lead, I feel great pains should be taken to ensure that such elected souls are restricted as much as can be without impeding the purpose of the government unduly. Certainly, I will take a system that allows both Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Madow to stomp and fume and say what they please, over one that would gag one, the other, or both. Because in the latter, a judgement call will be made at some point, and such calls can easily be, in the wrong hands, used to control open debate and narrative.

It is a system of personal responsibility. For the assurance of truly unimpeded ideas, we bear the burden of having to navigate through dangerous waters. The results, however, will ever be worth it to me.

Manchu wrote:@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain?

Actually, yes, as you currently experience it. English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA. There are some Americans who like to indulge in this fantasy that because of the war between Britain and its erstwhile colony the USA is a cultural entity completely distinct from Britain, but that's all it is: A fantasy. The 'founding fathers' were Anglos, an inescapable fact, and one which informs the life you currently live and enjoy.

Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point

So your propaganda trumps mine, correct? Can you refute what I posted or is it just that it's too uncomfortable to admit?

Incidentally, we're drifting way off-topic. PM me to continue this if you like. Or not, I won't be offended.

Manchu wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.

W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.

Goes a little bit further than 'offended' though. For example, hate speech is considered to be inciting others to engage in 'racist' (or whatever ism applies.) speech or acts, which can result in all manner of deeper nastiness. Likewise, its entirely possible to assault someone with words and be nearly as damaging to that person as if one had actually attacked them, psychologically speaking. Verbal abuse is still abuse.

If anything, powerful oration can do substantially more damage than a kick in the face, because powerful oratory can spread an idea or suggestion to a much larger group, who in turn can act upon that suggestion.

This is where "Free Speech" meets 'Libel and Slander'. And I don't necessarily support jail sentences for 'Word-crime' either, for the record.

Also, it seems odd to argue for freedom of speech on a site that is regularly 'censored' via moderation, and uses word filters. What about my 'right' to tell someone to feth off without it filtering to a different word I did not write? (I'm being rhetorical, I'm well aware of all the reasons why 'Free Speech' doesn't count on the internerd. I used to Op IRC. I still have the preset messages about it somewhere.)

Albatross wrote:English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA.

So what? You know if we follow this sort of thinking, shouldn't you be lauding Germany and France?

So your propaganda trumps mine, correct?

That's right -- because the point I am referring to is the actual concern that inspired the Bill of Rights, rather than some grand conspiracy planned out according to a Marxist critique of society.

@Manchu - I just had to google Howard Zinn. He looks like a hoot.

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain?

Actually, yes, as you currently experience it. English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA. There are some Americans who like to indulge in this fantasy that because of the war between Britain and its erstwhile colony the USA is a cultural entity completely distinct from Britain, but that's all it is: A fantasy. The 'founding fathers' were Anglos, an inescapable fact, and one which informs the life you currently live and enjoy.

Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point

So your propaganda trumps mine, correct? Can you refute what I posted or is it just that it's too uncomfortable to admit?

Incidentally, we're drifting way off-topic. PM me to continue this if you like. Or not, I won't be offended.

This reminds me of a quote from a friend and Dakkite. "There were no Americans in the AWI. Only British people." *rage ensues*. "No, its true. Loyalists and Traitors."

Um, personal freedom's a pivotal thing, but its bad when it infringes on someone elses. You shouldn't allowed to have the freedom to steal someone's things (nope on that one), take there life (nope too), or offend them just because of the way they look (......yeah, about that). Its a person's freedom to defend themselves that are unjustly offending them....youknow with their freedom of speech? If you punch a guy because of the colour of their skin then its a crime, why no if you just belittle them for it? Eugh, calling someone names can do just the same amount of mental damage. Its stupid that people are defending someone's right to be racist, sexist or any other other isms (^^), that again the bill of rights card is being used as the primary argument is getting repetative (guns, freedom to defend yourself,getting off over pictures of representations of naked kids, hell that's in there too apparently). ¬¬

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Goes a little bit further than 'offended' though. For example, hate speech is considered to be inciting others to engage in 'racist' (or whatever ism applies.)

Verbal abuse is still abuse.

Those are two different things. I've already addressed the second one (hurt feelings don't merit jail) but as to the second -- I agree that people are morally responsible for others who carry out their rhetorical orders. But I don't think they're legally responsible. Why? Because absent some inducement, the killer's own will is the only fulcrum on which the issue of intent turns.

And I don't necessarily support jail sentences for 'Word-crime' either, for the record.

Then we agree!

Also, it seems odd to argue for freedom of speech on a site that is regularly 'censored' via moderation, and uses word filters. What about my 'right' to tell someone to feth off without it filtering to a different word I did not write?

Well, besides one of the two site owners being British, you see here practiced the American way of dealing with free speech. You can be fired for telling a racist joke at work and you can be banned from telling one here on Dakka. But neither me nor your boss can have you arrested for it. Well, maybe a British mod could have you arrested for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@Manchu - I just had to google Howard Zinn. He looks like a hoot.

It's quite worth reading! I read it as a young man and it did its radicalizing work, to be sure. Took me a long time to wipe the crocodile tears out of my eyes.

'Hurt Feelings; is still massively underplaying what can be done to a person by verbal means alone, in a variety of ways.

@ Manchu

On the point that words apparently don't hurt as much as physical violence, hell that maybe just you. There's plenty of people who have taken to self harm because of stupid names that idiots have called them.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:'Hurt Feelings; is still massively underplaying what can be done to a person by verbal means alone, in a variety of ways.

Not really. If you systematically verbally abuse someone, it's called harassment and that is a crime. EDIT: Well, it's a bit more fact-specific than that, TBH. Calling someone fat three times isn't enough, certainly.

Manchu wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:'Hurt Feelings; is still massively underplaying what can be done to a person by verbal means alone, in a variety of ways.

Not really. If you systematically verbally abuse someone, it's called harassment and that is a crime.

....So what your ignorant that people can feel hurt because of one slur thrown at them? You don't know what mental state their in. It doesn't matter if you would care if someone bellitled you for who you are no reason other than that, its if someone else would. Maybe you have a more dog eat dog society, youknow if you "weak" enough to feel bad about a slur being thrown at you then your not fit enough, I donno, but I really don't want to live in one where people can think they can get away with that kind of thing. Hey we're taught from primary school that that kind of thing is wrong, and kids that racially abuse another are reprimended worse than those that just get into fights (hell I know, I've did it to kids that acted like that when I was a temp).

Edit: Oddly the BBC is showing a program on this very issue right now, queer.

Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.

@Manchu - Once again, I'm more than willing to discuss stuff with you via PM should you wish.

@Albatross: I'm here because I'm a little bored, so willingly being trolled you might say. I think you know I'm a pretty staunch Anglophile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:Hey we're taught from primary school that that kind of thing is wrong

We are too. And we're also taught that lying is wrong. But it takes quite a particular type of lying to get you thrown in jail.

Eugh, whatever man, its a neat to discuss points with people with opossing views and all, but this one seems to have stagnated a little into circular arguments (youknow its there right not to be hurt - they shouldn't feel hurt from a little thing like that - but what if they are?). ^^

Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.

Que? 0.o

KingCracker wrote:Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?

Kingcracker, the finest First Amendment Ork in town.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

Also no legitimate reason to attack a person because of their religion, or ethnicity, or weight, or physical ability, or political persuasion, or economic means. I guess everyone better start lining up now. Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.

Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.

Just you. In the words of the immortal bard: Vive Le France!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Wallow in your freedom.

Albatross wrote:Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.

Well said, Albatross.

Frazzled wrote:Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.

Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.

First you need to have a dictator and, more importantly, people willing to go along with him. What any silly little document says is irrelevant if it isn't vested with any significance by the people in power.

Its not a slippery slope, not really, because ultimately individual decisions stand in isolation from one another. Prohibiting one type of speech doesn't implicitly mean that other types of speech will be prohibited. If it did, then the US was bound and destined to become tyrannical when incitement to violence ceased to be protected speech. Conversely, there are plenty of places in the world where the only type of prohibited speech is political speech.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.

Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.

First you need to have a dictator and, more importantly, people willing to go along with him. What any silly little document says is irrelevant if it isn't vested with any significance by the people in power.

Its not a slippery slope, not really, because ultimately individual decisions stand in isolation from one another. Prohibiting one type of speech doesn't implicitly mean that other types of speech will be prohibited. If it did, then the US was bound and destined to become tyrannical when incitement to violence ceased to be protected speech. Conversely, there are plenty of places in the world where the only type of prohibited speech is political speech.

I'd posit the founding fathers (ok the rich white guys in the various state assemblies who pushed the Bill of Rights) would disagree with you strongly.
Name me a dictatorship with freedom of speech.