Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SirLoin on April 18, 2008, 06:41:11 PM
-
"To my fellow citizens of The United States of America"
"You will do me the justice to remember,that I always supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion,however different that opinion might be to mine.He who denies to another this right,makes a slave of himself to his present opinion,because he procludes himself the right of changing it..."
Thomas Paine's preface to his written work "The Age of Reason".
As a founding father,I wonder how he would have weighed in on today's hate speach laws.
It seems pretty clear to me that many countries think it is the government's job to regulate what is an acceptable difference of opinion...That you are not free to dissent from the "accepted & unalterable" versions of history,that you may not hate someone's "faith" without fear of violating some hate speach law that says you are inciting hatred to some sort of ethnic group.
In other words,the act of expressing hatred is a crime..It has been said,you can't have happiness without experiencing sadness...i would go on to say you can't express love without having expressed hatred as well.It is one of the many emotions that are inate in us.Now that hate has been criminalized,what is next?..
How about thought crime...Last week at my work some woman claimed some guy was looking at her in a "sexually derogatory manner"(the third person in 6 months with this lady).He was charged with sexual harassment and given a written warning not to go near or look at this woman in any fashion.Now this guy's fearfull of even the slightest eye contact,not to mention the stress of his job...How this lady knew what this guy was thinking when he glanced at her is beyond me.She in effect is claiming to know this guy's thoughts..something she cannot possibly know..and is allowed to press harrassment charges...
It concerns me the direction we are going with this.I remember not too long ago,being able to speak my mind(or to look) without fear of "offending" someone.I guess what my point is once you start the regulation of speach,expression and race..the spinoffs of this end up being even worse(silence,suppression & racism)...
I'll wager Thomas Paine & Thomas Jefferson are rolling over in their graves at this current gravitation and errosion of freedoms.
And i don't appologize if i have offended anyone.
<S>
-
It gets worse.
Here in Illinois you can be charged with a felony if you look at somebody the wrong way.
-
It gets worse.
Here in Illinois you can be charged with a felony if you look at somebody the wrong way.
What... you been peekin into bedroom windows again?
-
How about thought crime...Last week at my work some woman claimed some guy was looking at her in a "sexually derogatory manner"(the third person in 6 months with this lady).He was charged with sexual harassment and given a written warning not to go near or look at this woman in any fashion.Now this guy's fearfull of even the slightest eye contact,not to mention the stress of his job...How this lady knew what this guy was thinking when he glanced at her is beyond me.She in effect is claiming to know this guy's thoughts..something she cannot possibly know..and is allowed to press harrassment charges...
The problem with most hate speech laws in the U.S. is that intent of the person supposedly committing the crime means nothing, it all boils down to what the complainant feels was meant by the action/speech that they endured, that is impossible to defend against.
shamus
-
It gets worse.
Here in Illinois you can be charged with a felony if you look at somebody the wrong way.
Understandable if its..... the lazy eye!
-
Speaking as a minority, I find the concept of hate laws rather insulting. It's pretty much saying that we as minorities are unequal and need special laws to protect us.
And on the logic side, I would think assault and murder by their very nature are "hate crimes" and don't need any special categorization if committed against a minority. Murder is murder if the victim is white or black. Does murder take any less hatred if the victim is white? To me, there is no difference between someone getting assaulted or murdered for their money or for the color of their skin or sexual preference. It's still assault/murder no matter how you look at it.
ack-ack
-
Speaking as a minority, I find the concept of hate laws rather insulting. It's pretty much saying that we as minorities are unequal and need special laws to protect us.
And on the logic side, I would think assault and murder by their very nature are "hate crimes" and don't need any special categorization if committed against a minority. Murder is murder if the victim is white or black. Does murder take any less hatred if the victim is white? To me, there is no difference between someone getting assaulted or murdered for their money or for the color of their skin or sexual preference. It's still assault/murder no matter how you look at it.
ack-ack
You don't understand the liberal mind. I've had this argument a few times with my friend.
He thinks that killing someone because of a perceived or actual racial difference, or even other philosophical difference is so much worse than killing them for any other reason. He doesn't follow the logic that it doesn't matter why the murder victim is dead...
-
The problem with most hate speech laws in the U.S. is that intent of the person supposedly committing the crime means nothing, it all boils down to what the complainant feels was meant by the action/speech that they endured, that is impossible to defend against.
shamus
-
OK...........
IMHO a really BIG mistake is happening here! :eek:
We are dealing with liberals here........... :O
"The Age of Reason"??????????????? :huh :huh :huh
-
I get the impression Payne and his contemporaries were considered quite liberal and even radical by the standards of their day. This isn't really a Lib v. Con debate. Seems to me there are very few true "liberal" or "conservative" minds out there. It's one thing to espouse a set of beliefs or priorities but I for one see very few that truly embody the mindsets they support.
Like most laws, it's about money. It's about creating a larger constituency. It's about allowing the "authorities" even more opportunity to justify their existence. It's about creating an even deeper morass of useless statutes that only cultivates demand for the criminal justice industry.
While I feel it's hard to argue that victimizing somebody because of what they are as opposed to what they do is against the fundamental principals of our society. It's even more un-American to place more emphasis on unseemly thoughts than deeds. But by adding yet another layer of criminality to aberrant behavior the powers that be are simply more able to disguise their incompetence and ultimate lack of relevance.
-
thruster.. by the standards of the day of our founders.. I would be a liberal too. that really isn't saying much as we have to deal with the politics of our day.. a liberal today is simply a socialist big government extra rights guy who can't see anything other than gray areas.. no black and white.. I am surprised a modern liberal can even decide what to wear in the morning.
the landscape changes not the people.. a for instance is the late Charlton Heston.. a great man.. marched beside the civil rights leaders. At the end of his life.. many considered him a racist.
The man did not change.. the landscape did. at the end of his life he would have marched to give negros the same rights as whites.. but.. the landscape changed. what he did was considered radical liberal thinking (and action) yet.. as time went on.. it was not considered enough.. now.. to want equal rights is a step.. but to not go all the way and want extra rights.. to not want to support socialism.. is considered racist and right wing.
The man did not change.. he would never have signed on for affirmative action even when he marched for equal rights.
lazs
-
Sirloin you are dead nuts right about this. I'm a little surprised by the disdain for the fundamental Enlightenment value of free speech that seems to be encountered more and more under the sobriquets of human rights, racism or homophobia (if you can't find a suitable word on the left you make one up). The trial of Oriana Fallaci, the current pending show trial of Mark Steyn by the Canadian Human Rights Commision or the prosecution of Brigitte Bardot which is being beat to death in another thread are evidence of this. Seems as though the Jacobins are alive and well and similarly disposed to their intellectual antecedants that imprisoned Thomas Paine himself.
-
People have become too weak to let others speak the truth
-
The Bardot thing isn't even understood in full context. It's not such great evidence as some seem to be convinced.
-
... I'm a little surprised by the disdain for the fundamental Enlightenment value of free speech that seems to be encountered more and more under the sobriquets of human rights, racism or homophobia (if you can't find a suitable word on the left you make one up). The trial of Oriana Fallaci, the current pending show trial of Mark Steyn by the Canadian Human Rights Commision or the prosecution of Brigitte Bardot which is being beat to death in another thread are evidence of this. Seems as though the Jacobins are alive and well and similarly disposed to their intellectual antecedants that imprisoned Thomas Paine himself.
-
this thread needs to be cleared by the federal dept of permissible opinions. FDPO.
-
Sirloin don't even get me started on bs like hate speech/crime laws and ideas like TP's Age of reason. I'm just saying you're off the mark including Bardot as an example. Then again it wouldn't be the first time your judgement is off base.
-
The Bardot thing isn't even understood in full context. It's not such great evidence as some seem to be convinced.
Then by all means edify us.
-
Nah.. You're just going to have to take my word for it. Pick any of the other instances of those french laws, and you're most likely to find a good example. I'm not gonna take the time to flesh out a whole freakin lesson on french culture, sorry.
I mentionned Houellebecq's interview with 'Lire' magazine, maybe if you're really interested rather than trolling, you can look up the court transcripts or something. I might even help you out and translate the relevant parts in that or any other valid instance. The Bardot thing though, is a waste of time. It just sounds really good to guys who don't know much or anything about france.
-
French culture with respect to this issue is irrelevant to me. Bardot is a neurotic goofball. I remain unconvinced that that fact impairs her right to express an unpopular point of view without being dragged into the dock for hate speech. Not her right under French law (which I freely admit I know nothing about), not her right in your opinion but her right as a first principle of Enlightenment Thought. You obviously disagree. Good for you.
-
If you were doing more than just replying to my posts and were actualy reading up on the context to the Bardot trial and French laws, you'd see there's precedent to people in France expressing unpopular points of view.
You obviously don't see that French law and French culture and principles of Enlightenment Thought *cough* Voltaire *cough* are pretty intertwined. [insert disingenuous sarcasm here]
-
Monday morning schedule:
1. Bone up on french law so I can understand the point moot is driving at. He seems to think the conclusion is obvious but, diary, I can't figure that out from the four articles I read on Bardot and he won't tell me. Sniff.
2. Call Garrison Keillor and tell him I think I've found Pierre. Man, I miss the Cafe Boufe skits, maybe he can start them again now.
3. Go out a make a living.
Man, that is a pretty full schedule...couple of these might have to go...lesee...
*cough* guillotine *cough* ;)
-
1) There's tons of other legislative/judiciary example to draw on, in French law... But somehow Bardot is getting everyone's attention. Because? It certainly isn't a case representative of most of the rest.
2) I'm not going to write an essay on french culture and livelihood. Bardot is peculiar enough that I'd have to write pages, and/or the reader would have to have lived in France long enough (say, 6 months purposefuly observing the subject matter) to sufficiently apreciate the subtleties that'd "enlighten" the reader on why Bardot's a special case, unlike a lot of other, better instances of free speech vs. french legislature/customs.
3) Extraneous bullet point that adds nothing to the real subject of the thread
4) another extraneous bullet points cause it's really fun to fill a thread with impertinent filler
-
Man the things we do to be Political Correct...
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w182/palmettobug53/Young20Frankenstein.jpg)
Igor: Dr. Frankenstein...
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: "Fronkensteen."
Igor: You're putting me on.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No, it's pronounced "Fronkensteen."
Igor: Do you also say "Froaderick"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: No...”Frederick."
Igor: Well, why isn't it "Froaderick Fronkensteen"?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: It isn't; it's "Frederick Fronkensteen."
Igor: I see.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: You must be Igor.
[He pronounces it ee-gor]
Igor: No, it's pronounced "eye-gor."
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: But they told me it was "ee-gor."
Igor: Well, they were wrong then, weren't they?
-
hate speech laws are a joke and too open to broad interpretation... soon they will be applied to simple political statements
-
Sirloin you are dead nuts right about this. I'm a little surprised by the disdain for the fundamental Enlightenment value of free speech that seems to be encountered more and more under the sobriquets of human rights, racism or homophobia (if you can't find a suitable word on the left you make one up). The trial of Oriana Fallaci, the current pending show trial of Mark Steyn by the Canadian Human Rights Commision or the prosecution of Brigitte Bardot which is being beat to death in another thread are evidence of this. Seems as though the Jacobins are alive and well and similarly disposed to their intellectual antecedants that imprisoned Thomas Paine himself.