Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
Ok. I have no idea what your point is in that tirade. My point was that you can establish a standard on "inciting violence" that does not squelch the right to free expression, regardless of how abhorrent or disgusting people may find that expression.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
(31-03-2015 05:45 PM)BnW Wrote:  Ok. I have no idea what your point is in that tirade. My point was that you can establish a standard on "inciting violence" that does not squelch the right to free expression, regardless of how abhorrent or disgusting people may find that expression.

"Tirade"?

lolwut. That was like 100 words.

No, my point was that you can't have a standard that will please everyone, corollary to which is the observation that all jurisdictions will not define such a standard (presuming they have one) in the same way. So, every time anyone, anywhere, ever, says "this type of speech should/shouldn't be allowed/banned", then you're going to get disagreement.

So no, you can't establish a standard that some people will not see as squelching their right to free expression. And no, you can't establish a standard that some other people will not see as dangerously irresponsible.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
Ok.

I still don't see the point. Who claimed you can satisfy everyone? I certainly didn't. My response was to your claim that incitement will always be subjective. I disagree. The law in at least the US sets forth objective criteria for when the line is crossed. People may throw their subjective interpretations into deciding if a crime has been committed, but that problem exists with any objective standard you try to monitor. Hell, you have juries who can't always agree if something is a murder. You can't define around the human problem and there is little point in trying.

When it comes to free speech, US Law and courts do an excellent job of protecting it. They have not always but, at present, it's something we can generally be proud of.

Sadly, some very recent events are sliding us backwards, but I'm hoping those are just anomalies.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" sits well in this case: if you're going to advocate for an organization which murders nonadherents, then tasting a little medicine of your own seems only fair.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of killing people for opinions. On the assumption that the Kurds are behind this, I can understand their motivations, but indiscriminate attacks are not the answer. Battlefield success is. I hope the Iraqis and Peshmerga grinds IS to powder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
(01-04-2015 11:10 AM)BnW Wrote:  Ok.

I still don't see the point. Who claimed you can satisfy everyone? I certainly didn't. My response was to your claim that incitement will always be subjective. I disagree.

Yes, and I think you're wrong.

Anyway, what you originally said was that the difference was clear-cut (ie, between speech which "incited violence" and that which did not). That's what I very much disagree with.

(01-04-2015 11:10 AM)BnW Wrote:  The law in at least the US sets forth objective criteria for when the line is crossed.

It does not, in any meaningful sense.

(01-04-2015 11:10 AM)BnW Wrote:  People may throw their subjective interpretations into deciding if a crime has been committed, but that problem exists with any objective standard you try to monitor. Hell, you have juries who can't always agree if something is a murder. You can't define around the human problem and there is little point in trying.

Which is what makes "objective" very much the wrong word to use. The sense in which "inciting violence" objectively constitutes prohibited speech is the same sense in which "wrongful" killing objectively constitutes murder: a trivial, meaningless one.

(01-04-2015 11:10 AM)BnW Wrote:  When it comes to free speech, US Law and courts do an excellent job of protecting it. They have not always but, at present, it's something we can generally be proud of.

Do you think that American law constitutes a better alternative than what exists in other similarly developed states?

If so, or not, why? How can that be evaluated?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: Pro ISIS magazine bombed in Turkey
But the law is clear cut. Are you taking a contrary position based on knowledge of US laws or are you taking a position on the concept that it can't be clear cut? I ask because US law is fairly evolved on this topic. The overwhelming lean is towards not preventing free expression. Within the US, you can impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of speech but you can't prohibit the speech itself. There are limited exceptions to this. Sedition is not protected speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede of people trying to get to safety and claim that was you just exercising your right to free speech. You can't incite a crowd to violence and then show them an immediate outlet. And, in that last example, the threat of violence had to be imminent. Telling a crowd of people that they should kill some minority group on their way home isn't going to cut it. The law makes people responsible for their own actions and you are only going to be on the hook for inciting them if it all happens in real time.

I disagree it's not objective in any meaningful sense. I think it's objective in a very meaningful sense. The entire point is to allow free expression. No matter how vile. No matter how unpopular. No matter what the message you have the right to express it without government interference or prosecution. Order a murder, you are obviously responsible for that, but express a desire to see people murdered and you are protected. And, you should be. The moment we accept we can suppress any idea by using force, we've accepted the idea that we can suppress any idea by using force. All ideas have a right to be set forth in the marketplace of ideas. And people can decide which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. The governments job is to stay the fuck out of that. That is an extremely objective standard.

Regarding the idea that not everyone will be satisfied - so what? Liberties are not issued through popularity contests. Civil rights and liberties are generally only discussed when something is unpopular. Be it so called "hate speech" or gay marriage or even atheism, all these things are frowned upon in the US and much of western society to varying degrees. Good ideas will gain traction on their own merit. Bad ideas will fall by the wayside the same way. We don't need to be regulated or protected from mean words and feelings.

Quote:Do you think that American law constitutes a better alternative than what exists in other similarly developed states?

If so, or not, why? How can that be evaluated?

Yes, absolutely. And, that doesn't mean I think that the US is superior to all similarly developed states in this regard. It may be, but I'm not versed enough in the laws elsewhere to really say. As for your question of "why", I already answered it - the US law grants a near absolute right to free expression. I say "near absolute" because, as I've stated a few times, there are certain, very limited restrictions. But, absent those specific things, you can say whatever you want regardless of how silly, or offensive, or counter intuitive it may be.

How can it be evaluated? By the promotion of ideas in a society. The US isn't perfect and as we've grown bigger and richer and stronger, we've become less perfect in our actions. But, our stated ideals and professed values? Those are as close to perfect as any government has ever achieved (the difference between text book and reality). The idea that all men (meaning mankind) are not only created equal but are all to be seen equally under the law is as ideal a society as you can promote. Where you are not only not judged based on your wealth or social standing but also not on your race, your religion, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc. was a novel idea in history. Granted, we've often failed to live up to those ideals and we are seeing evidence of that again in Indiana. But, the reason Indiana has turned into such a colossal goat fuck for them is precisely because of the idea of free speech and free expression. Very few places on Earth have that right to the extend we do in the US. Politicians may be subject to the transitory whims of the electorate but the founding legal principles stand above all that.

Well, usually they do. They haven't always. Ultimately, human beings are awesome at fucking things up. But, we are, in many ways, getting better. Despite the fighting death throes, repression of gays is coming to an end. Racism isn't at an end but society no longer legally justifies it or allows it. We improve, and if you don't think the right to free expression was the key to that (and I'm not suggesting you said otherwise), you have not paid attention to history.

Coming full circle here - many people found the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo offensive. It wasn't just Muslim fanatics. The Pope was non too happy either. You can't just say you stand for free speech when you either sympathize with the victim or just despise the group that denied it. It cuts both ways. Muslims would argue that what Charlie Hebdo did was as much an instigation to violence as these asshats running the pro-ISIS magazine. Whether we individually agree with that point is not relevant. What is relevant is that both had an equal right, or should have at least, to express their view unfettered by government regulation or interference. Let the market place of ideas sort out who is right and who is wrong.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: