US Presidential Candidates

Daryl wrote:if a future PM tried to redefine hate speech in a restrictive way, he would cop it in the media and polls. At the present moment a couple of high visibility cases seem to be winding the definition back anyway.

I suggest you look up the history of the UK's/Canada's hate speech laws and then contemplate your own position.

Might notice, they keep
"interpretting" the law more and more broadly. Evolution of "law" AKA adding to it.

"threatening", "insulting" words if they "stir-up" anxiety are now "hate speech" in the UK. So, tolerant... So tolerant... Who are the intolerant ones now? Hrmm?

Welcome to the regressive leftists who naturally call themselves "progressives". Liberal values? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Don't exist anymore.

Stand in the middle of Harlem and scream out "All niggers are cunts".

Free speach?
Yelling fire in a crowded place?
Or suicide?

Hate speach laws, PC, hell even defamation laws in part, exist because people take things too far.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Peter we had (Abbott), and due to party power brokers, still do have (Turnbull), a Trump-esqu PM who is trying to roll back out hate speach laws. (Way things are looking Abbott will be PM again by new years)

We have a Christian right who argued that they can't discuss same sex marriage without removing hate speach laws. (Pro tip, of course they can)

PeterZ wrote:Will you be ok with any new definition of hate speech? Suppose you get a Trump-esque Prime Minister and he changes the definition to make it more flexible and hence more likely to offend various groups. Will you be ok with that definition? Suppose that future Ptimr Minister gets rid of hate speech laws altogether? Would that be ok?

Daryl wrote:Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition.
As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred.
You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life.


[quote="Relax"]

WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all.

For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo.

Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.

[/quote]


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Stand in the middle of Harlem and scream out "All niggers are cunts".

Free speach?
Yelling fire in a crowded place?
Or suicide?

Hate speach laws, PC, hell even defamation laws in part, exist because people take things too far.

To start with all folks in harlem anymore have bucket loads of money... So, if you wanted to say something racist, most wouldn't care if we are going to be stereotyping.

Second of all, so what? Just makes you a douche bag. You can't legislate douchbaggery. If my neighbor 2 houses down, a black guy came to my front porch where I live(not that he would) and screamed out, "All crackers are cunts", so what? All he would be doing is showing his true colors as a racist with an inferiority complex. After all that is what racism is. Majority/Minority. Both sides of the same coin.

Let the racists, bigots, etc speak. They will quickly, graphically, show the world what they are. There is no better object lesson for everyone. None.

There is nothing "hateful" about your simplistic scenario so your "hate speech" laws don't apply.

Yelling, "FIRE" in a crowded place is also just fine. Now, if a stampede ensues and someone is hurt or dies, due to your delight in being a stupid jack ass, you are now 100% liable for all damages due to your stupidity. Nothing needs to be changed in the law to cover the scenario. It is already covered.

Relax wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And let me just stop your rant there...

You do realize all of those "read more" links lead to...

Now personally I don't think Clinton was ever going to implement meaningful financial reform and she has a long history of saying anything she thinks she needs to say to get elected

Wow! You don't say, READ MORE links have more information. No way! Say it isn't so! No kidding! Why thank you for telling such a blind ignorant like myself that they exist... Did you bother to read them? No...

And I'll just stop you there again.

First, yep, read them.

Second, you admit she had detailed policy positions. So debate over, one candidate addressed policy contrary to your claim neither of them did.

You not *liking* those policies doesn't make them not exist.

Thank you for clarifying. Since the definitions of what is allowed is subject to your government as you described, you don't have any right to free speech. You are given a privilege to speak in ways government finds acceptable.

Sorry I'd rather face being insulted but have the government constitutionally prohibited from sanctioning my speech. That way they cannot define my speech as unacceptable for political reasons. I hazard a guess that Trump would have violated those definitions.

Here's a description of how political correctness manifests here in the US. Perhaps this is similar abroad, but I don't presume to make that claim.

Article

The people the press ridicule with all sorts of pejoratives disagree with the politically correct view of the press. Yet, that disagreement is met with a smug attitude that discounts their concerns. That frames their just concerns as racist, sexist or homophobic when nothing
could be further from the truth.

Most of the people who accounted for Trump's margin of victory in the Blue Wall states are Democrats that haven't voted Republican since Reagan. They voted for Reagan for very similar economic reasons to those that motivated them to vote Trump. The Democrat Party ignored them. Here's Michael Moore's accurate take on why the Blue Wall voters supported Trump.
Michael Moore

In the end political correctness leads to more of what motivated the liberal press to ridicule supporters of their preferred party. Unless people stay within acceptable boundaries, they will be subject to sanctions. The private sector is currently ridiculing transgressors. Government has much bigger sticks to wield.

That makes Trump preferable for me. He is loud and bombastic and says the most outlandish things. His outlandish statements make the more common discussions regarding the sensitive issues we face tame in comparison. He will force us all to become more tolerant of speech. To make us focus principally on the ideas expressed and not the words used. Substance over style.

Annachie wrote:Peter we had (Abbott), and due to party power brokers, still do have (Turnbull), a Trump-esqu PM who is trying to roll back out hate speach laws. (Way things are looking Abbott will be PM again by new years)

We have a Christian right who argued that they can't discuss same sex marriage without removing hate speach laws. (Pro tip, of course they can)

PeterZ wrote:Will you be ok with any new definition of hate speech? Suppose you get a Trump-esque Prime Minister and he changes the definition to make it more flexible and hence more likely to offend various groups. Will you be ok with that definition? Suppose that future Ptimr Minister gets rid of hate speech laws altogether? Would that be ok?

PeterZ wrote:Thank you for clarifying. Since the definitions of what is allowed is subject to your government as you described, you don't have any right to free speech. You are given a privilege to speak in ways government finds acceptable.

Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and then let us know if what you're allowed to say is subject to your government too.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Thank you for clarifying. Since the definitions of what is allowed is subject to your government as you described, you don't have any right to free speech. You are given a privilege to speak in ways government finds acceptable.

Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and then let us know if what you're allowed to say is subject to your government too.

If anyone was hurt, the yeller would be liable. Likely there are also ordinances that would chastise the miscreant severely.

I have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I don't have the right to endanger people or cause through my willful or negligent actions.

We seem to have come full circle in this forum, back to sovereign issues. You seem to believe that we are allowed speech at the whim of our government, who can dictate what is acceptable or not, while you are free.
Bullshit. I remind you that the people have the whip hand here, with five government changes in five years. As I mentioned earlier people tend to be self regulating with hate speech being publically shamed on social media. The relatively mild 18C provision is quite similar to the shouting fire in a theatre scenario, there to prevent harm, and I'm unaware of any successful prosecutions. The real control of hate speech is the general population's strong view that it is unacceptable.
This is one area that the Trump win impacts us, in that the relatively small percentage of our population that is to the far right will now be emboldened to challenge general public opinion.

Yes, we do come back to liberty and sovereignty. Your system works for you and ours works for us. Both our systems limit freedoms. The way they do that differs slightly in ways that appeals to the respective citizens of our nations. Big woop.

I prefer my liberty and you prefer your government granted freedoms/privileges.