karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Scot - cases under it are rare but it is enforced, see the case mentioned by gears. As for your second question, you know I don't speak legalese at the best of times, I'm on drugs recovering from major surgery, I don't even understand the question :P Try to get Stubby in here to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,If it is rarely enforced it sounds like the State is taking the position that "malacious intent" has to be shown for the insult to be illegal as most insults would fall under the exemptions. As such I have to question the utility of the law if it is rarely used. It seems to only have utility when some idiot, who's public words will be noticed, says something incredibly stupid and insulting before someone can be prosecuted.Is that the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think the consequence would be to give an undesirable degree of political power to the (self-appointed) leaders of minority groups, who would then demand that people be prosecuted for saying things they deem offensive. In the UK, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act has a chilling effect on free speech, for that very reason. I am not familiar with the UK culture, so can you please elaborate on that a bit? What are these chilling effects? And what format of free speech are we talking about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I do not believe so, I'm pretty sure it's also been used to force some idiot bigot to apologise for being an idiot bigot (without criminal charges) in a small regional community. The new Gov wanted to get rid of it, but it enjoys something like 90% support amongst our population so they had to back down. I'm hardly an expert on any law, let alone this one, but the point is that it is explicitly making it unlawful to cause offense and does not seem to be particularly chilling to free speech. Especially with good faith exemptions for public interest discussion which seem to be your area of concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,I see where you are coming from. I simply disagree with you and oppose such a law. Neither I nor anyone else should have the right to be free from insult. I don't think people should insult others but I don't think insults should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 And I think your view of freedom extends so far in one direction that it leaves you blinded in others, it's hardly an issue I see as restricted to you but is a general American thing. Disagreement is grand though, I'd do a fancy bow now if I could Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,Because something is not prohibited by law do you get the impression that Americans think that those actions are just and proper to undertake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,Until we see that there was actual evidence against Al-awlaki I have to say yes for people speaking in support of terrorism outside the US. Let me ask this differently. Is it your genuine opinion that al-Awlaki was, in fact, in violation of an actually existing US law prohibiting speech simply expressing support for terrorism and that the US government was, in fact, seeking to enforce this law and was on firm legal ground in its enforcement actions against him? If so, color me surprised. If no, this is all tangential to the point I first made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Way to completely misinterpret what I was saying (which may be my fault, I'm not exactly feeling coherent). Freedom means something different to the majority of Americans as it means to me and many who think like me, that was my point, not that Americans think it's fine to go around racially insulting people. Clearly plenty of them do and plenty of them don't, so I'd hardly claim that as a universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,There is no such law to my knowledge. Never the less, the only evidence of bad acts by Al-awlaki are his statements in support of terrorism because our government has decided that they can kill a citizen based upon secret evidence.Karaddin,Then what do you mean? Why is it wrong to dislike a law that makes something I dislike illegal? I don't like people smoking and I will never do that but I don't think it should be "illegal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 OAR,There is no such law to my knowledge. Never the less, the only evidence of bad acts by Al-awlaki are his statements in support of terrorism because our government has decided that they can kill a citizen based upon secret evidence. I leave it here then. While I think the al-Awlaki case is well worthy of discussion, I don't think it merits further discussion in this thread as it touches on issues specific to that case and unrelated to an actual attempt to codify suppression of speech into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm with Scot on this one. I do not at all like the idea of anyone being able to set universal standards on what is too insulting to be heard. I think that decision is for each individual to make and if you do not like what someone else is saying you can ignore them or you are free to refute them with your own form of speech. This works fine, it's why most of the bat-shit crazy speech is widely recognized to be the unenlightened opinions of fringe weirdos. Things like holocaust denial (for example) have been so thoroughly debunked in public debate as to be rendered mostly harmless. When these types of things creep into the mainstream they are then subjected to public scrutiny and often stamped out... not because it was banned or prevented in order to protect our sensibilities, but because it was shown to be wrong, ugly, or backwards. I can think of quite a few issues where public opinion has drastically changed just in the span of my lifetime for this very reason. The wide level of acceptance of gay marriage, a concept in which many US Christians did and still do find to be quite insulting to their beliefs, has entered the public debate in the US in such a way that it now has over 50% of the population in support. As recently as the late 90's it was like 25%. My point is that public debate on this issue (that many would claim to be insulting to them) has led to a huge swing in support the other way because most of the arguments against boil down to religious arguments or simple bigotry. It took a hell of a long time, and is still a work in progress, but once everything was on the table for all to see, the tide began to turn. Despite the fact that I often have thoughts to the contrary - most people are not idiots. It's just a matter of getting people informed. My point is - who gets to decide what is insulting and what is not? Its subjective and evolves with time. Many things that were considered insulting to the collective sensibilities of upstanding members of society 50 years ago are widely accepted now. Gay marriage and interracial marriage - just to name a couple prominent examples. There are always going to be people out there who hold fringe opinions, are generally hateful, or like to be contrarian just for the sake of it. The way to deal with them is to show why they are wrong, and call out their idiocy when you see it. Debate, not suppression. Its patronizing, imo, for there to be a built in mechanism in government designed to prevent me from being insulted and I think it could easily do more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Ok this time I'm 100% positive I didn't say that Karaddin,Then what do you mean? Why is it wrong to dislike a law that makes something I dislike illegal? I don't like people smoking and I will never do that but I don't think it should be "illegal".You are perfectly free to dislike it. I'm free to like laws that curtail certain individual freedoms for the sake of the public interest, for example other freedoms. ETA: S.John - you don't see any difference between saying that something is offensive to you on the basis of your beliefs and something is offensive on the basis of something inherent and unchangeable about you? Christians finding gay people offensive is not remotely the same as racial vilification, and if you can't see that distinction I don't even know where to start the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think a Muslim kid in France might justifiably wonder whether people were using the 60 seconds allotted to silently hate Muslims. "Think about the victims of these awful crimes..." and implicity "Think about the kind of people who committed these crimes; they are all around you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Karaddin,Why is the law necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I am not familiar with the UK culture, so can you please elaborate on that a bit?What are these chilling effects? And what format of free speech are we talking about here? I don't think there are any. The law says: A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. But adds:29 Protection of freedom of expression Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 ETA: S.John - you don't see any difference between saying that something is offensive to you on the basis of your beliefs and something is offensive on the basis of something inherent and unchangeable about you? Christians finding gay people offensive is not remotely the same as racial vilification, and if you can't see that distinction I don't even know where to start the conversation. Of course I see the distinction. But many of them would not and that is exactly my point. They would find the word of God to be an inherent and unchangeable part of their being and an insult to that just as offensive as an insult leveled for any other reason. You're assuming that the people deciding what is over the line and what is not are always going to come down on your side and share your worldview. Maybe that isn't always the case. So why set the precedent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm with Scot on this one. I do not at all like the idea of anyone being able to set universal standards on what is too insulting to be heard. I think that decision is for each individual to make and if you do not like what someone else is saying you can ignore them or you are free to refute them with your own form of speech. This works fine, it's why most of the bat-shit crazy speech is widely recognized to be the unenlightened opinions of fringe weirdos. Things like holocaust denial (for example) have been so thoroughly debunked in public debate as to be rendered mostly harmless. When these types of things creep into the mainstream they are then subjected to public scrutiny and often stamped out... not because it was banned or prevented in order to protect our sensibilities, but because it was shown to be wrong, ugly, or backwards. I can think of quite a few issues where public opinion has drastically changed just in the span of my lifetime for this very reason. The wide level of acceptance of gay marriage, a concept in which many US Christians did and still do find to be quite insulting to their beliefs, has entered the public debate in the US in such a way that it now has over 50% of the population in support. As recently as the late 90's it was like 25%. My point is that public debate on this issue (that many would claim to be insulting to them) has led to a huge swing in support the other way because most of the arguments against boil down to religious arguments or simple bigotry. It took a hell of a long time, and is still a work in progress, but once everything was on the table for all to see, the tide began to turn. Despite the fact that I often have thoughts to the contrary - most people are not idiots. It's just a matter of getting people informed. My point is - who gets to decide what is insulting and what is not? Its subjective and evolves with time. Many things that were considered insulting to the collective sensibilities of upstanding members of society 50 years ago are widely accepted now. Gay marriage and interracial marriage - just to name a couple prominent examples. There are always going to be people out there who hold fringe opinions, are generally hateful, or like to be contrarian just for the sake of it. The way to deal with them is to show why they are wrong, and call out their idiocy when you see it. Debate, not suppression. Its patronizing, imo, for there to be a built in mechanism in government designed to prevent me from being insulted and I think it could easily do more harm than good. The law Karradin references was passed in 1975. And yet gay and interracial marriage didn't make the cut. This seems an overblown concern. Which is basically what this argument always boils down to. Alot of people, mostly americans because of societal differences, worried about precedents and repression that have never actually manifested in any of the numerous western countries where these kind of laws exist and have existed for awhile now. The opposition to this kind of shit is purely based in speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shryke,Why are these laws necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shryke,Why are these laws necessary? Because not all forms of expression are acceptable in all contexts. Same reason we regulate the distribution of pornography, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.