Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the (potential) right to be free from insult

[Fez]

We've already had the debate. Nazis are bad.

So what then are you asserting is the value of Nazis expressing their opinions?

Well, if we let them speak in public then at least we know who they are.

[TrueMetis]

Hey, since when has truth ever been established by debate? In my experience debate does nothing more than establish the better orator. Who may or may not be talking utter shit.

[Shryke]

LtI,

And this is the type of stuff that can go down when people think it is just and proper to criminalize speech based on content.

But, again, you already do that.

You are trying to make an all or nothing argument when no one here actually thinks it's an all or nothing issue. Even you.

See, one can think it's ok to regulate speech just like one can think it's ok to regulate what is sold in a store. And one can do this without thinking that every regulation everyone could possibly come up with must be ok.

[Shryke]

Well, if we let them speak in public then at least we know who they are.

And if we don't let them speck in public, it doesn't matter who they are since we don't need to deal with them at all.

I don't care if you are secretly a huge racist as long as don't act on it, in speech or otherwise. No skin off my back.

[Fez]

And if we don't let them speck in public, it doesn't matter who they are since we don't need to deal with them at all.

Hopefully. But a group with a history of trying to overthrow democratically elected governments and getting up to all sorts of criminal activities since adding the neo- prefix? I'd rather we did let them vent in public if that's the cost of being able to better identify and track who they are.

[Shryke]

Hopefully. But a group with a history of trying to overthrow democratically elected governments and getting up to all sorts of criminal activities since adding the neo- prefix? I'd rather we did let them vent in public if that's the cost of being able to better identify and track who they are.

Or we could just not let them spread their ideology at all.

[Ramsay Gimp]

We've already had the debate. Nazis are bad.

So what then are you asserting is the value of Nazis expressing their opinions?

What a lame attempt to frame the debate. Again, the burden of proof is on you and other authoritarians to show why these laws are necessary.

[Fez]

Or we could just not let them spread their ideology at all.

If someone wants to be a Nazi, they're going to become one regardless of whether they see someone talking/writing in a public space. And if someone doesn't, they aren't going to be affected except as to feel disgust at the messenger.

[The guy from the Vale]

If someone wants to be a Nazi, they're going to become one regardless of whether they see someone talking/writing in a public space. And if someone doesn't, they aren't going to be affected except as to feel disgust at the messenger.

No, that's not how these kinds of things work. Charismatic proponents of certain ideologies can certainly attract new people into that ideology. Allowing them to speak publicly is the same as stating that their ideas are socially acceptable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TgftV,

Allowing them to speak publicly is the same as stating that their ideas are socially acceptable.

No. That's a false dichtomy. Allowing speech is not the same as saying that the speech allowed is proper. The propriety of the speech is an issue seperate from whether free speech is generally allowed or supported.

[jarl the climber]

TgftV,

No. That's a false dichtomy. Allowing speech is not the same as saying that the speech allowed is proper. The propriety of the speech is an issue seperate from whether free speech is generally allowed or supported.

I'm not really a strict constructionist but what intent did the founders have when they enacted the first amendment? Would they be shocked if someone felt insulted by what someone said and resorted to violence? Early in the Republics history, in the antebellum era, it was probably the abolitionists who pushed the boundaries of free speech the most. People can judge the results for themselves.

[SeanF]

We've already had the debate. Nazis are bad.

So what then are you asserting is the value of Nazis expressing their opinions?

Heretics and atheists are bad as well. All right-thinking people know that the truth has been established for all time. Rome has spoken and the debate is over.

Humbler people think it's a good thing that their beliefs should be challenged.

[Gears of the Beast]

We've already had the debate. Nazis are bad.

So what then are you asserting is the value of Nazis expressing their opinions?

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine

[karaddin]

Scot I'd argue the law with the rapper is about draconian laws to crack down on gangs, and nothing at all to do with an intent to fuck with free speech. We have similar shit going on in Qld here with laws against bikie groups which will hopefully be ruled unconstitutional as they violate freedom of association.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

But the law is being used to quash speech based upon content. Hence, my opposition despite my dislike of "Gangsta rap".

[karaddin]

In case you couldn't tell I am opposed to that law too, I'm simply saying I think you miscategorised the intent of the law, clearly not the outcome.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

I don't think the law was created to go after "Gangsta rap". I'm saying it's an example of government stretching the terms of an existing law to inhibit speech based on content. If they can do this with a law not designed to hit speech how much easier ia it to stretch the terms of a law that is designed to restrict speech?

[karaddin]

Well given a law designed to restrict speech probably has the issue of scope creep much more firmly in mind, I would say it's entirely possible to draft legislation restricting speech that will make it much harder to stretch than it is to stretch and unrelated law into doing saw. If the law is lazily drafted then its going to be abused regardless of what its about.

[Darzin]

We've already had the debate. Nazis are bad.

So what then are you asserting is the value of Nazis expressing their opinions?

Because if the government can censor their speech they can censor my speech, if someone who thinks my opinions are terrible and morally debased wins elections I don't want them having the power to censor my speech.

Yes. You, much like Ramsay, are expressing an opinion that it's never OK. I'm expressing an opinion that it is OK. I'm not quite sure how simply stating an opinion is supposed to be winning an argument or swaying me.

If you can censor people you hate what's the point of free speech. Nazis are a hated minority if we can keep free speech for them it protects all hated opinions not just ones I agree with.

[ants]

Sorry Ants, but this reasoning is just bollocks. This is well within what one should accept within academic discourse. They are harsh, but no more insulting than the situation called for. If you can't insult leaders of foreign countries that are responsible for horrendous actions, like Netanyahu or Abbott, who can you insult?

Well, really you shouldn't insult anyone. What does it achieve? The insult is the domain of the child who doesn't have a true argument, or the firebrand trying to start a fight. Personally, I have little respect for someone who needs to resort to it in discourse. Is insulting someone/something going to change the mind of those who currently support it? Will it sway the undecided? When does using an insult do anything to support a cause other than to maybe rile up or amuse those already converted? We certainly see plenty in the politics threads throw insults - do you think they achieve anything except to reduce the respect for the one flinging it?

And there are insults based on straight facts and those that are nasty. Netanyahu may deserve the nasty, but I think publishing such a nasty insult in a public forum is poor judgement.

Also - since when was twitter "academic discourse"?