Worst of Social Justice

[Sleepy]

Yeah, that's my issue with them. There are no boundaries.

Who says?

People typically apply hate speech to gender, race, orientation, or religion, but what's stopping it from going further? I don't mean it on an individual scale (like an employer or university), but federally. Hate speech can easily be redefined to apply to other groups.

[chitoryu12]

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

[Thejebusfire]

Back on topic:



Welcome to Tumblr; Where viewing someone's public blog is akin to rape.

[dpareja]

Back on topic:



Welcome to Tumblr; Where viewing someone's public blog is akin to rape.

The comparison is massively overblown, but it's not the viewing to which the writer is objecting.

[QueenofHearts]

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

A number...

such as the first amendment.

[RavynousHunter]

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

A number...

such as the first amendment.

Silly Queen, the Constitution only matters when its convenient.  You know, like the Bible.

[QueenofHearts]

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

A number...

such as the first amendment.

Silly Queen, the Constitution only matters when its convenient.  You know, like the Bible.

Of course, how could I forget the 2nd amendment is the only real amendment?

[chitoryu12]

A number...

such as the first amendment.

I would like to propose the banning of alcoholic beverages. My argument: the 21st Amendment.

Freedom of speech has never been unlimited in any nation, for various reasons, and that includes the United States. The United States is actually rather unusual in its liberal view on hate speech laws. The more people who are allowed to advocate discrimination, the more people their message can influence. We're not exactly quashing a rebellion here, or censoring people from criticizing the government. This is about preventing people from attempting to further goals that reduce the civil rights of innocent people, or even have them killed or brainwashed.

Of course, how could I forget the 2nd amendment is the only real amendment?

The real irony in this is using nothing but the First Amendment to support allowing free hate speech in the United States, when you would immediately attempt to brutally dismantle a pro-gun rights argument that used nothing but the Second Amendment. Maybe even using very similar text as I had above here.

Regardless, this isn't an argument about gun rights.

[RavynousHunter]

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

A number...

such as the first amendment.

Silly Queen, the Constitution only matters when its convenient.  You know, like the Bible.

Of course, how could I forget the 2nd amendment is the only real amendment?

Second Amendment...isn't that the one saying I can shoot any commie pinko I see?  Or was that the one declaring America a Christian Nation?

[QueenofHearts]

* QueenofHearts sighs

here we go...

A number...

such as the first amendment.

I would like to propose the banning of alcoholic beverages. My argument: the 21st Amendment.

And what exactly is your point? That constitutional guarantees of rights are not absolute? Cause I knew that from Schenck v. United States. Or that the constitution can be amended and portions removed? Cause I knew that too. Quite frankly, I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Freedom of speech has never been unlimited in any nation, for various reasons, and that includes the United States. The United States is actually rather unusual in its liberal view on hate speech laws. The more people who are allowed to advocate discrimination, the more people their message can influence. We're not exactly quashing a rebellion here, or censoring people from criticizing the government. This is about preventing people from attempting to further goals that reduce the civil rights of innocent people, or even have them killed or brainwashed.

Goalpost shift. We are clearly talking about implementing them in the United States. See here

You mean you think we should have hate speech laws? If someone is convicted of hate speech, would punishment would they face?

Bolded for emphasis. But, then you asked this question specifically

Is there any argument against it that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

And I answered the question. I presented a reason why they couldn't be implemented in the United States, because they're unconstitutional. In the link you posted, if you look at it, it mentions Brandenburg v. Ohio. That is a staple of free speech law in this country, if a I recall, a 9-0 decision. I would be surprised if it is overturned in our lifetimes. But of course, then you goalpost shift by saying, "well, lets ignore this reason, now why can't we?".

The real irony in this is using nothing but the First Amendment to support allowing free hate speech in the United States, when you would immediately attempt to brutally dismantle a pro-gun rights argument that used nothing but the Second Amendment. Maybe even using very similar text as I had above here.

Regardless, this isn't an argument about gun rights.

I love how you removed Ravy's post from the quote. You know, where he says "the Constitution only matters when its convenient.  You know, like the Bible." clearly showing he is, and by proxy I am, JOKING. But this shows your hand, you're looking to argue for argument sake.

Second Amendment...isn't that the one saying I can shoot any commie pinko I see?  Or was that the one declaring America a Christian Nation?

DISCLAIMER, MAKING A JOKE BECAUSE PEOPLE DO THAT: Ravy, it does both. That is the wonder of the Second Amendment, God gave it to us to protect our Christian nation by living in paranoia about "outsiders."

[Sleepy]

Wiki's definition of hate speech: In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Given its broad scope, but I'm not particularly confident that our lawmakers can create and enforce such laws without bringing their own harmful political bias into it. This leads to selective interpretation and potentially serious limitations when it comes to freedom of speech, something that is protected by our first amendment.

[RavynousHunter]

Second Amendment...isn't that the one saying I can shoot any commie pinko I see?  Or was that the one declaring America a Christian Nation?

DISCLAIMER, MAKING A JOKE BECAUSE PEOPLE DO THAT: Ravy, it does both. That is the wonder of the Second Amendment, God gave it to us to protect our Christian nation by living in paranoia about "outsiders."

Aah, how efficient!  I figured we'd need 10 amendments to give us that, since it takes 10 commandments to get "don't be a prick" across.

Also, I don't bother pointing out its a joke, because my jokes are typically so obvious, that you'd have to be brain dead to miss 'em.  If Mr. B. Natural over 'ere decides to ignore 'em, well...I'll ignore him, too.  Not with any half-arsed ignore list, either, because I happen to be pro like that.

[Ghoti]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!

[Cerim Treascair]

Wiki's definition of hate speech: In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Given its broad scope, but I'm not particularly confident that our lawmakers can create and enforce such laws without bringing their own harmful political bias into it. This leads to selective interpretation and potentially serious limitations when it comes to freedom of speech, something that is protected by our first amendment.

Sadly, while I wish we had hate speech laws, I DO have worries over the broadness.  I just want to stop fuckers like the WBC protesting funerals.  Or the idiots that say "if you're gay, you deserve to die" / "if you wear skimpy clothes, you deserve to be raped" kinda bullshit.  That should not stand in a civil society and they SHOULD face legal repercussions for what they say.


I'm reminded of a line from "God Bless America":  "What's the point in calling ourselves a civilization if we cannot act civilized?"

[wrightway]

The Bethyl tag on tumblr seems to have decided that pointing out someone's publicly given age and tying it to their shipping preference is hate speech. I'd go grab examples, but that tag always makes me feel like I'm going to end up on a watch list.