Does context matter?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: Does context matter?
(10-03-2014 02:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 07:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  "nobody should have their feelings protected by law". Agreed.

Which is inconsistent with your next sentence. No gesture should be illegal.

You didn't see me do it but I might have just made an anti-Nach gesture to you. But I deny it. Your word against mine in court.

Next step... criminalising hate-thoughts!

But nail-on-head: Social penalties / peer pressure / ostracising.

Traditionally, cultural change requires a combination of incentives and penalties, typically:
Economic
Moral
Social

Techniques used are:
Policy ... rules, laws, principles derived through shared values
Financial (the most effective) ... charging/pricing, fines, lost earnings, bonuses, taxes
Champions ... capitalising on human's sheep mentality.

The problem with the hate gesture / hate speech legislation is that the law-makers are imposing their morality on others.

Sure, government exists to protect minorities so when it comes to physical abuse, denying equal opportunity, I'm right with you but denying rights to freedom of expression is a dangerous game if the 'wrong' people get into power. History is littered with such examples.

I meant gestures made in public, as in provoking people to commit a crime. In private any gesture is legal, you may even plot to kill me in private and it would be fine if you just keep it a plan.
But if you encourage people to kill me or threaten me in public, with words or any other means, then we have a problem.

Completely agree with the rest Smile

Technically even plotting with other people to commit a crime is illegal. Conspiracy to commit _______.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Does context matter?
(10-03-2014 02:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 02:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I meant gestures made in public, as in provoking people to commit a crime. In private any gesture is legal, you may even plot to kill me in private and it would be fine if you just keep it a plan.
But if you encourage people to kill me or threaten me in public, with words or any other means, then we have a problem.

Completely agree with the rest Smile

Technically even plotting with other people to commit a crime is illegal. Conspiracy to commit _______.

I know, c'mon people, I meant plotting alone, and I said as an extreme case of an immoral, private, thing to do that's not illegal vs. a less extreme thing to publicly that is illegal.

Jees catch a hint Facepalm

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: Does context matter?
(10-03-2014 03:28 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 02:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Technically even plotting with other people to commit a crime is illegal. Conspiracy to commit _______.

I know, c'mon people, I meant plotting alone, and I said as an extreme case of an immoral, private, thing to do that's not illegal vs. a less extreme thing to publicly that is illegal.

Jees catch a hint Facepalm

I'm on your side man was just making a minor point.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Does context matter?
(10-03-2014 07:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Sure, government exists to protect minorities so when it comes to physical abuse, denying equal opportunity, I'm right with you but denying rights to freedom of expression is a dangerous game if the 'wrong' people get into power. History is littered with such examples.

An entirely fair point - but virtually all powers we generally reserve to governments are open to abuse.

That freedom of expression does not extend to threats is almost universally acknowledged; that freedom of expression does not extend to harassment is fairly widely acknowledged. But of course, harassment is subjective...

If I recall correctly actual "hate speech" is here defined as incitement to hatred or genocide (!). The application varies tremendously.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: