|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2017-7-05. : 9:00 pm]  Pr0nogo -- then what does this mean? Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: Pr0nogo Inciting hatred leads to violence and discrimination. Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: Pr0nogo Correcting or preventing injustice is improving the system's functionality, IMO. [2017-7-05. : 8:59 pm] Pr0nogo -- if i walked out onto a street corner and said 'death to america', i should go to jail, according to you[2017-7-05. : 8:58 pm] Pr0nogo -- sorry, you expressed a thought we don't like, go to jail now please[2017-7-05. : 8:58 pm]  Voyager7456 -- Those rights are not and have never been held to be absolute though[2017-7-05. : 8:58 pm] Pr0nogo -- because the 'root causes' are freedom of thought and expression LMAO[2017-7-05. : 8:58 pm] Voyager7456 -- How about we go after the root causes of problems instead of triaging them after the fact?[2017-7-05. : 8:57 pm] Pr0nogo -- pretty sure inciting violence and discrimination are against the law, no?[2017-7-05. : 8:57 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: i see no argument for how jailing people because of speech improves the justice system's functionality Correcting or preventing injustice is improving the system's functionality, IMO.[2017-7-05. : 8:56 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: i also don't see any argument for how it would improve society, even Inciting hatred leads to violence and discrimination.[2017-7-05. : 8:56 pm] Pr0nogo -- i also don't see any argument for how it would improve society, even[2017-7-05. : 8:56 pm] Pr0nogo -- i see no argument for how jailing people because of speech improves the justice system's functionality[2017-7-05. : 8:55 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: Voyager7456 so because the current system isn't working, we should introduce more dubious components? Because the current system isn't working, we shouldn't make any changes?[2017-7-05. : 8:55 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: and if i had to decide if someone should go to jail because of something they said that may have been in jest, and i had any doubts at all, I would refuse to return with a guilty verdict So would I. I was literally the lone holdout in a case because I couldn't satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt.[2017-7-05. : 8:55 pm] Pr0nogo -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: Pr0nogo And yet we still have laws so because the current system isn't working, we should introduce more dubious components?[2017-7-05. : 8:54 pm] Pr0nogo -- and if i had to decide if someone should go to jail because of something they said that may have been in jest, and i had any doubts at all, I would refuse to return with a guilty verdict[2017-7-05. : 8:54 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: there's plenty of reason to assume the latter, just look at all the cases where it's been proven that innocent people went to jail on things as heavy as murder sentences And yet we still have laws[2017-7-05. : 8:53 pm] Pr0nogo -- there's plenty of reason to assume the latter, just look at all the cases where it's been proven that innocent people went to jail on things as heavy as murder sentences[2017-7-05. : 8:53 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: there might be some cases where you can, but a lot of guilty people will go free, and a lot of innocent people will go to jail You're just assuming that. The former is a certainty, but there's no reason to assume to latter. We have a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a reason.[2017-7-05. : 8:53 pm] Pr0nogo -- being ostracized publicly is punishment enough for most people to self-police[2017-7-05. : 8:52 pm] Pr0nogo -- public opinion, however, can and will change if all you do is make edgy jokes on the internet[2017-7-05. : 8:52 pm] Voyager7456 -- I've served on juries before. It's difficult but not impossible to make a ruling on someone's intent.[2017-7-05. : 8:52 pm] Pr0nogo -- there might be some cases where you can, but a lot of guilty people will go free, and a lot of innocent people will go to jail[2017-7-05. : 8:51 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: if you can't prove intent, you can't prove guilt What makes you think you can't prove intent?[2017-7-05. : 8:51 pm] Pr0nogo -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: Pr0nogo I do not. But I also don't think claiming "I'm joking" is a blanket get out of jail free card. which is why most of these anti-hate speech laws are unenforceable[2017-7-05. : 8:50 pm] Voyager7456 -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Voyager7456 that explains a lot. It'd be weird because none of my speech has been picked up on a national level. Seems a little out of their purview. But I wouldn't have an objection.[2017-7-05. : 8:49 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: do you believe making jokes using hate speech should be against the law I do not. But I also don't think claiming "I'm joking" is a blanket get out of jail free card.[2017-7-05. : 8:49 pm] NudeRaider -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: NudeRaider Yes. that explains a lot.[2017-7-05. : 8:48 pm] Pr0nogo -- do you believe making jokes using hate speech should be against the law[2017-7-05. : 8:48 pm] Pr0nogo -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: We have obscenity laws in the US that often require subjective interpretation. It's not like there isn't a precedent. answer the question[2017-7-05. : 8:47 pm] Voyager7456 -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Voyager7456 so if for some reason CNN would decide you talking about the POTUS is a big deal, tracks you down and reveals your identity, that would be cool with you? Yes.[2017-7-05. : 8:47 pm] NudeRaider -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: I don't think they overstepped their boundaries at all. It's not CNN's fault he's a little bitch that feels threatened. so if for some reason CNN would decide you talking about the POTUS is a big deal, tracks you down and reveals your identity, that would be cool with you?[2017-7-05. : 8:47 pm] Voyager7456 -- We have obscenity laws in the US that often require subjective interpretation. It's not like there isn't a precedent.[2017-7-05. : 8:45 pm] Pr0nogo -- yeah, inciting hatred is shitty, but when you have people who will take the piss out of hate speech for jokes, is that now against the law?[2017-7-05. : 8:45 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: Voyager7456 the meaning of speech evolves over time, which is why i can call my friends 'fag' and not mean 'gay male' Yeah and so our interpretation of laws evolves over time to.[2017-7-05. : 8:44 pm] Pr0nogo -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: I think it's unethical to allow speech that exists solely to incite hatred. the meaning of speech evolves over time, which is why i can call my friends 'fag' and not mean 'gay male'[2017-7-05. : 8:43 pm] Pr0nogo -- either you need to legislate a specific clause that calls for case-by-case analysis, intent, etc. instead of blindly applying the law wherever it could fit (so we don't have jokes becoming illegal)[2017-7-05. : 8:43 pm] Voyager7456 -- I think it's unethical to allow speech that exists solely to incite hatred.[2017-7-05. : 8:42 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: laws outlawing speech are either unenforceable or unethical That's like, just your opinion man.[2017-7-05. : 8:42 pm] Voyager7456 -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: Anti-hate speech sounds great, the tricky part is getting everyone to agree on what "hate speech" means. (and will mean in the future) Drafting laws is always tricky.[2017-7-05. : 8:42 pm]  Moose -- Anti-hate speech sounds great, the tricky part is getting everyone to agree on what "hate speech" means. (and will mean in the future)[2017-7-05. : 8:41 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: I assume it's all inherently a subjective perception where you yourself classify something as hate speech and as a result it should be forcibly removed from public discourse Clearly not the case since as you mentioned, there are laws in other countries. So it is a thing that can be codified.[2017-7-05. : 8:39 pm] Pr0nogo -- I assume it's all inherently a subjective perception where you yourself classify something as hate speech and as a result it should be forcibly removed from public discourse[2017-7-05. : 8:38 pm] Voyager7456 -- Which is why I have to settle for the cudgel of public opinion right now.[2017-7-05. : 8:38 pm] Voyager7456 -- (TBF, I'm actually very much in favor of anti-hate speech legislation. But as much as I would like it, there is none in the US.)[2017-7-05. : 8:37 pm] Pr0nogo -- which is where we're headed and where a lot of european countries are already at[2017-7-05. : 8:37 pm] Pr0nogo -- yeah, the difference is that the free marketplace of ideas is allowed to weed out those ideas that the constituents disagree with or don't want around[2017-7-05. : 8:36 pm] Voyager7456 -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: because plenty of people think that you should lose your job, your freedom, your life, etc if you simply disagree with them Difference between "people boycott your business" and "you are imprisoned/killed/whatever"[2017-7-05. : 8:36 pm] Pr0nogo -- and I imagine this school of thought is on both sides of the aisle, despite most of the noisemakers being from one end |