Dionisio wrote:

<deep inhale> Ah... The scent of newbie on the gentle evening breeze...

Oh come on, fourth post in? That's a BIT early.

cavello@yahoo.com wrote:

James wrote:

<snip>

It serves as my point of reference, whether it agrees with my

ideals or not. We're discussing the issue of free speech being
considered hate crime, so how can you possibly conclude that that isn't
relevant?

Because it doesn't win the argument. As I said, it's like limiting your
pro-abortion arguments to "But we have abortion".

Not very many things win an argument by default. Using anterior law to
look at prospective law is nothing similar to a blind-faced "but we
have abortion" statement.

Besides, isn't it a bit early for us to argue about what we're arguing
about?

?? What time is it where you are?

I guess not.

Child and family services would disagree with you.

I'm talking about verbal abuse, you dumbass.

So was I, you belligerent twit.

*Again*, saying "I hate gays" or "I hate Jews" is not a hate crime as
far as I'm concerned. Taking action on these prejudices (such as
attempts to legislate rights away from the minority, holding event in
an attempt to rally against the minority, etc) is when it crosses the
line.

So what the ***** are you talking about?? That has NOTHING to do with
free speech.

The right to peaceful assembly has nothing to do with free speech?

That's the veritable fucking DEFINITION of free speech, for christ's
sake.

I don't care what the pope thought/thinks or said/says, and I

don't care that he made his position against them official. I think he
should know better than to do so, quite frankly, but that's not really
the point here. Thinking and acting are separate.

That's what I said. It's also totally at odds with much of what you've
previously said. For example: "You can't ignore hate. Sticking your
fingers in your ears accomplishes nothing."

Are you having a bad day with analogies or something? You can't ignore
hate. You can ignore thoughts.

as you've so delicately pointed out, but it's virtually impossible to
ignore all of them. (Nor should you.)

involved in any hate crime to my knowledge, so I don't quantify JPII's
mumbling as a hate crime.

How is that a contradiction?

As an example that they're *exactly* the same thing, take a look at the
public school system. You're trying to tell me that emotional abuse is
less important than physical? Psychological studies have shown that
verbal abuse is just as damaging, if not more so. That is ANYTHING but
ludicrous.

Totally different. The victim in a school bullying situation doesn't
have the option of flicking a switch or a radio dial and being
immiediately sperated from his tormentor.

We were talking about verbal vs physical abuse, not the ability to
avoid them. You, good sir, have missed the point.

In public discourse, there is
no such captivity. Like I said, free speech has limits, and those
limits lie when what is said interferes with the other person's rights.
In your living room, you have a fucking remote. In a classroom, the fat
nerdy kid doesn't. See?

If you're looking at it from a neutral third-party perspective,
perhaps. What if you're the gay student worried about getting
*****-kicked at 9PM on the way home from the college mixer? I think
you'll agree that they have the right to *not* get *****-kicked on the
way home, but shouldn't they have the right to not be *afraid* of
getting *****-kicked?

You can't ignore hate. Sticking your fingers in your ears accomplishes
nothing. If you can manage it, I applaud you.

I don't HAVE to stick my fingers in my ears. I can change channels. I
can turn the page of my newspaper. It's basically a demand that is put
on ALL of us in a free society. Learn to master it.

If I didn't agree with you to certain degree, I'd be out there throwing
***** in the faces of every person that didn't have the same morals as
me. What I'm trying to explain to you is that there are several OTHER
demands that a free society places on us.

Religion is a special topic in this regards, since everything is based
on discrimination. Your neighbors are Catholic and you're Baptist, so
they're gonna be receiving *****-pitchforks while you're sipping ambrosia
with Abraham. You have to hold this kind of elitism in a special
regard because it's more inclusive than black/white.

So we're bending ther absolutes here? Religion has a "special" place
with regard to free speech?

You're goddamned right it does.

shouldn't be) permitted to engage in political activity.

instiution is founded on hating the guy next door, you don't have a
choice about granting it certain "special" conditions.

The trick is to avoid being offended by the religion itself. When
members start publically (and vocally) advocating aspects of it, your
responsibility is at an end.

This, again, is my position. Turn a blind eye, let the idiots say what
they like. It hasn't been yours until now.

While I consider that to be wishful thinking, I'll be the first to
admit that you've brought up some interesting arguments. I've been
thinking about them. If you're convinced my opinion has changed,
though, then it's either because I didn't explain myself properly to
begin with or you're trying to typecast.

If someone is being

abusive and slanderous, they have forfeited their right to free speech.

God, you said the exact OPPOSITE only a few paragraphs ago. Let me
quote yourself back to you: "I don't care what the pope thought/thinks
or said/says, and I don't care that he made his position against them
official. I think he should know better than to do so, quite frankly,
but that's not really the point here. Thinking and acting are
separate." In other words, you entitle the Pope to say what he likes as
long as he doesn't actually perform any *actions* that infringe on gay
rights. This is PRECISELY what I've been saying.

It depends on what's being said. I consider "all gays are immoral
monsters and must be stopped" to be outside the realm of free speech,

while I don't for "we must reach out to gays with love."

been saying "you can't say anything about anything,"

"you have to behave with a certain code of conduct." As such, I
consider hate crime to be possible without physical attacks of any
kind.

Stop, go back, and re-read what I've written. I'm sorry if I don't fit
in the hole you've dug for me.

As for forfeiting your right to free speech as soon as you become
abusive or slanderous, bull. Has it occured to you that just about
every mosque on Earth is filled with the sound of crackpots
denunciating everything Western?

We're not talking about the rest of the Earth.

And a lot of Western churches and
non-Churches too? In fact, the world is FULL of what individuals might
easily interpret as abuse or slander.

Hey, remember what I said about religion holding a special place with
regards to free speech? That's part of what I was talking about.

And you're right, the world's full of abuse and slander. But does
volume mean it's justified?

You're trying to justify "I'm going to start kicking air, and if you
happen to get in the way it won't be my fault."

Nope. Terrible analogy. Free speech doesn't physically hurt anyone.
Like I said, you cannot ignore a punch or a kick. You can ignore what
some idiot says about you.

See what I wrote about psychological damage with regards to verbal
abuse, because you apparently forgot about it. Forget about the
educational context if it helps.

absolutely fucking *wicked* analogy.

Hm, that's a strange way of looking at it. You've been claiming that
abusive behavior is in accordance with the concept of free speech. I
brought up an example explaining otherwise.

Incorrect. I said it's in accordance with *my preferred definition* of
free speech. In other words, it's the kind of free speech I advocate.
You merely said back "But the law in Canada says abc." You didn't
actually offer any counter-argument.

Well, a lot of that comes down to you changing the argument without
filling me in first. I thought we were talking about free speech with
regards to the bible being "eventually" banned. You, for reasons that
utterly escape me, deduced that we were arguing about the philosophy of
free speech.

my knowledge) it's on my side in this context.

You have one majorly buggered definition of counter-argument if that
doesn't qualify.

Heh, "backwoods region!" Right, Canada! Funny guy, funny guy.

C'mon, you're from the Maple Leaf State, get used to it. I'm Irish, so
I took your gin joke on the chin. Come to think of it, these are
perfect examples of what we're talking about. I know a certain amount
of Canadians get offended about comments made about their country. So
do Irish people. Where would you draw the line there? Where would you
draw the line if I could produce a Canadian who found the comment
"backwoods" to be abusive and slanderous? Now do you see the problem?
You are basically allowing the victim to define the crime.

I can't draw an imaginary line between "violation" and "acceptable"
because I don't think in terms of black and white. It depends on the
seriousness of the accusation, the viewpoint of the victim, the
behavior of the accuser, et al. This isn't "all or nothing," and
that's why it's so hard to look at it from a legal perspective. Does
that mean it CAN'T be looked at from a legal perspective? Or that
complexity/awkwardness denotes failure?

And for the record, I seriously doubt that you have what it takes to
set me off.

I'm not chiding you for bringing it up. I beleive you when you say that
this guy was reprimanded. I'm interested though in what was actually
said.

I do appreciate that.

<snip>

Pft, nothing of the sort. Historically, the courts have had to advance
human rights over legislature. (Usually with vehement opposition.)
The point isn't WHAT the laws say, but WHY they say it.

You seem to miss the point. Arguing that "the law" says this is no
substitute for arguing "the law SHOULD say this". Bringing in activist
judges is irrelevant.

I've illustrated that what the laws says and what I think the law
should say are synonymous. In this case, I agree with the "why."

I'll freely admit that codes of conduct are largely arbitrary. We
obviously differ in opinions on what individuals can expect as
"rights," and the only examples I've got are largely unsubstantiated
recollections. Wasn't it the head of the Austrian government that got
peckerslapped for praising Hitler's organizational skills?

I'm sure he did. But was there a *legal* sanction taken against him? I
would argue that there should not have been, unless of course he argued
that Hitler's form of government should be returned, or that he
intended to return such a form of government. Then he'd obviously, as
the head of a government, be threatening people.

I don't believe there was legal action taken against him. I know for a
fact that Germany has laws in place that prevent pretty much any
association with Nazism, but I'm not sure about Austria. Regardless,
he was silenced.

Wasn't Bill

Maher removed from syndication after his "praise" of the 9/11
terrorists?

Removed from syndication maybe. But that's nothing to do with free
speech. Sacking a guy off a radio station doesn't infringe his free
speech.

Regardless, he was silenced.

they've said then it's a statement on the nature of free speech itself.

Isn't he under investigation right now for possible

treason (or something like that), as another recent a.a thread
outlines?

No idea. But as I said before, the quesiton isn't whether he is being
investigated or not, but whether he should be in your opinion and mine.

Both of these are examples of people not having the unalienable right
to say what they want. That's why I brought them up.

But since I believe that I've illustrated what the law has to say about
free speech, I'll try to refrain from making comments about the "is"
and stick to the "should" from now on.

We certainly don't have the right to say whatever we want whenever we
want to whomever we want, and we certainly shouldn't. Within the terms
of the law we do, but that just ain't the same; besides, I'm supposed
to stick to what *should* be law, right?

Yes, that's what I'd prefer to hear.

Sounds like a plan.

You're assuming that you can't refute bigots while preventing them from
public defecation. I can't see any reason why you'd come to that
conclusion.

Cos I'm not afraid of what some fucker says. I think as democrats we
should have the *confidence* to be able to get up there and face these
people, and pull their arguments to shreads right in front of everyone.
I don't beleive that scuttling them off the stage and pretending they
don't exist is preferable. I think our message to them should be "we
afford you the right to free speech, but in so doing we also afford
ourselves the right to sift through everything you say with a fine
tooth comb. Don't think you can use your religious/political/moralistic
cloak as an okay to say what you like and never have it refuted." Your
method of dealing with such outrageous speech, I would argue, never
deals with the situation, never presents the hater with
counter-arguments.

I would argue that you've made a large assumption without any basis for
it.

You take for granted that there's a stage, for starters. Most "hate"
goes completely unchallenged since there isn't some sort of a "hate
forum" to air grievances and counter-challenges. Usenet might qualify
as one, but it's irrelevant in real life.

You assume I hold my stance out of fear.

the crazy ones, and that's because they might shoot me in the face, not
because their arguments carry any weight. I fear the big stick, not
the softly spoken words.

You assume that "pulling their arguments to shreds" is possible.

Bigotry is rarely based on fact, and arguments from opinion are rarely
worth the time required to speak them.

impossible to refute, and utterly impossible to change.

So you agree that you threatened me.

Freely.

And you see the contradiction?

Completely. Well, as long as you're assuming that I was advocating
complete and utter puppy/kitten/flower love between our fellow human
beings.

Only if you can't see the difference between a hate crime and an insult
on Usenet, anyway.

I can of course, I'm merely making a point. YOU felt you could decide
what was and what wasn't a threat. I made the counter-point that we
could all do that if we liked. I could walk up to a Jew and wish death
upon all his ilk and then say "I've just decided I didn't really mean
that".

Well, I guess I'm still thinking in terms of law. I've said that I'll
avoid responding as such, but I'm not entirely sure how else to do so.
I know for a fact that you could report virtually any altercation or
threat as a crime, but I don't know for sure how a court would find.
It obviously depends on the circumstances. Could I be tried for
threatening to pimpcrack a belligerant Irishman, or you for threatening
a Jew? Perhaps. Probably. Fucked if I know, actually.

I'd go so far as to say that if I was seriously advocating the
pimpcracking of all Irishmen on the grounds that they were universally
belligerant, then it might qualify as a hate crime. You with the Jews?
Yeah, if you were serious, that would very likely qualify.

After all, why should they have to live with that?

***** man, loosen up.

Soon as you get that gin over to me:)

I've got a nasty "drunken fighting Irish" joke running around in my
brain, but I'll keep it to myself.