Poll: What would you have done with the "gay-books"
Pulp them!
Move them to the adult's section
Leave them in the children's section
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Pulp The Gay Penguins!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 12:32 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Rev and Chas have more than covered my thoughts on the matter - to wit, that the matter cannot be treated as one of an exclusive "or".

M'kay. Could you be more specific regarding "the matter"? There are a number of matters in this particular scenario.

Harmony or equality. Leading or following by governments.

More directly, that the books in the library should be allowed or not allowed. The solution chosen was very much an intermediate...

But you did say this:
(01-09-2014 07:28 PM)DLJ Wrote:  The obvious parallel is that both matters are about the need to balance community harmony against freedom of the individual.

So, there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
Incidentally...

(01-09-2014 04:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  As the subject was discussed, one line of reasoning was used in slightly different ways by two different ladies. This essentially boiled down to "we might have no problem with it but others do".

This position makes my eyes roll. It's the position that allows censorship because others "can't handle the truth". It's also the position that criminalises 'hate speech'.

As anyone who knows me well will know, I'm 100% in favour of free speech / free expression... No exceptions.

I would find it hard to believe you're in favour of allowing free expression of threats.

How are you defining hate speech? Under Canadian law it is recognised as that which is implicitly threatening...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:32 PM)DLJ Wrote:  M'kay. Could you be more specific regarding "the matter"? There are a number of matters in this particular scenario.

Harmony or equality. Leading or following by governments.

More directly, that the books in the library should be allowed or not allowed. The solution chosen was very much an intermediate...

But you did say this:
(01-09-2014 07:28 PM)DLJ Wrote:  The obvious parallel is that both matters are about the need to balance community harmony against freedom of the individual.

So, there's that.

Cool. So we agree. The SG government chose the appropriate course of action. Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 12:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...

I would find it hard to believe you're in favour of allowing free expression of threats.

How are you defining hate speech? Under Canadian law it is recognised as that which is implicitly threatening...

Well, I was going by the internationally recognised definition:

Quote:... freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.

I'm also with John Stuart Mill -- On Liberty (1859) (a good year for world-changing books)
Quote:...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

and also regarding the 'harm principle'.
Quote:
Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

But I am not in favour of the 'offense principle'.

I think we have the right to offend and also be offended.

As Mr Gervais would say "you have the right to be offended but being offended does not make you right".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 12:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally...


I would find it hard to believe you're in favour of allowing free expression of threats.

How are you defining hate speech? Under Canadian law it is recognised as that which is implicitly threatening...

Threats are against the rules of TTA as far as I know. If they are serious, they are grounds for banning.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 02:34 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 01:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 12:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...

I would find it hard to believe you're in favour of allowing free expression of threats.

How are you defining hate speech? Under Canadian law it is recognised as that which is implicitly threatening...

Well, I was going by the internationally recognised definition:

Quote:... freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.

I'm also with John Stuart Mill -- On Liberty (1859) (a good year for world-changing books)
Quote:...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

and also regarding the 'harm principle'.
Quote:
Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

But I am not in favour of the 'offense principle'.

I think we have the right to offend and also be offended.

As Mr Gervais would say "you have the right to be offended but being offended does not make you right".

Okay. Define "harm".

...

Does a threat constitute harm?

And there are those, for example, that believe, with respect to homosexuality, that it is harmful - and thus its suppression a beneficial (if not so far as necessary) exercise of power.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
02-09-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 01:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
Quote:
"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

There, that's it in a nut shell.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
02-09-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 02:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 01:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, I was going by the internationally recognised definition:


I'm also with John Stuart Mill -- On Liberty (1859) (a good year for world-changing books)

and also regarding the 'harm principle'.

But I am not in favour of the 'offense principle'.

I think we have the right to offend and also be offended.

As Mr Gervais would say "you have the right to be offended but being offended does not make you right".

Okay. Define "harm".

...

Does a threat constitute harm?

And there are those, for example, that believe, with respect to homosexuality, that it is harmful - and thus its suppression a beneficial (if not so far as necessary) exercise of power.

A threat is a statement of intent to inflict harm.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 02:35 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 02:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. Define "harm".

...

Does a threat constitute harm?

And there are those, for example, that believe, with respect to homosexuality, that it is harmful - and thus its suppression a beneficial (if not so far as necessary) exercise of power.

A threat is a statement of intent to inflict harm.

Right, but that still depends on the nature of 'harm'!

The law draws a distinction between those statements that might reasonably be (expected to be) acted upon and those that will not be. The former is a threat; the latter is not - but it might still be actionable as harassment, if we take harassment to be words which are intended to be harmful in and of themselves.

I don't think it can be denied that some forms of expression are, for various reasons, harmful to others, but I don't think that's possibly to police proscriptively. And I also think that that's the motivation for some "that's offensive!" calls - they're an attempt to do just that (in a dismissive and presumptuous way).

But did not the eventual policy regarding the topic which must not be named come from a similar place?

That just brings us back around - can we quantify 'harm'? How much need there be before action is taken? So we're still in a situation which admits of too much subjectivity to satisfy everyone. Not only can one not please all of the people all of the time, but it might not be possible to please any of the people at any time...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
02-09-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(02-09-2014 03:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 02:35 PM)Dom Wrote:  A threat is a statement of intent to inflict harm.

Right, but that still depends on the nature of 'harm'!

The law draws a distinction between those statements that might reasonably be (expected to be) acted upon and those that will not be. The former is a threat; the latter is not - but it might still be actionable as harassment, if we take harassment to be words which are intended to be harmful in and of themselves.

I don't think it can be denied that some forms of expression are, for various reasons, harmful to others, but I don't think that's possibly to police proscriptively. And I also think that that's the motivation for some "that's offensive!" calls - they're an attempt to do just that (in a dismissive and presumptuous way).

But did not the eventual policy regarding the topic which must not be named come from a similar place?

That just brings us back around - can we quantify 'harm'? How much need there be before action is taken? So we're still in a situation which admits of too much subjectivity to satisfy everyone. Not only can one not please all of the people all of the time, but it might not be possible to please any of the people at any time...

Threats of intended physical harm are the easiest and least controversial to limit. Even a hardcore Free Speech proponent would probably admit to a limit on this. However once you move from explicit threats to areas where there is no direct harm intended (or even caused) but rather the listener (even if not the intended target) has an extreme reaction, now we have reached a grey area. From a government standpoint I am opposed to all limitation of speech that is not a direct threat, however in a sub-government voluntary group setting I believe there can be a compromise. Outright bans are overstepping as I feel the outlawing of words gives them more power than they would otherwise have, shades of He-who-shall-not-be-named. I hate the phrase "The N word" as it, I believe, gives what should be a disused relic of a less civilised time staying power.

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: