Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

flag burning

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:20:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
is it really freedom of speech or a hate crime?

what do you say about this statement
"Freedom of speach like all freedoms comes with responsibility. It does not cover provocative slurs. You don't have the right to pick a fight. If you go into the ghetto and use the N-word...."

p.s
Burning the flag is something I take in deep offense (as a former US soldier) but until they pass the flag amendment it does fall under freedom of speech.
Even if i do not believe something morally, does not mean it is not covered by the constitution.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:26:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:20:42 PM, comoncents wrote:
what do you say about this statement
"Freedom of speach like all freedoms comes with responsibility. It does not cover provocative slurs. You don't have the right to pick a fight. If you go into the ghetto and use the N-word...."

If you go up to some Africans and start calling them the N-word, I see no issue with that - they might, but your freedom of speech exists for a reason. The only reason I would ever stop someone from voicing their opinion is when they start asking for violence to be directed towards others - that kind of threat is what "picks a fight," not simple use of exercising your freedom of speech.

Flag burning is the same as this - it should be allowed because it is only a statement, and not a threat.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:35:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:26:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
If you go up to some Africans and start calling them the N-word, I see no issue with that - they might, but your freedom of speech exists for a reason.

Well, your example is called verbal harasssment. You can't walk around calling people names, that is illegal and should be.

You can walk by a black guy and say "What's up nigga" and that's legal.

But, if you walk by a black guy and say/taunt "How ya doin nigga, you havin a good day nigga, where ya walkin to nigga, etc" that's illegal.

Insert [sir] for [nigga] and it becomes legal. Nigga is considered a derogatory word, just like b!tch, f*cker, slut, etc.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:40:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:35:23 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:26:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
If you go up to some Africans and start calling them the N-word, I see no issue with that - they might, but your freedom of speech exists for a reason.

Well, your example is called verbal harasssment. You can't walk around calling people names, that is illegal and should be.

You can walk by a black guy and say "What's up nigga" and that's legal.

But, if you walk by a black guy and say/taunt "How ya doin nigga, you havin a good day nigga, where ya walkin to nigga, etc" that's illegal.

Insert [sir] for [nigga] and it becomes legal. Nigga is considered a derogatory word, just like b!tch, f*cker, slut, etc.

your funny man
(i know you did not mean it that way but come on... kinda unexpected)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:35:23 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, your example is called verbal harasssment. You can't walk around calling people names, that is illegal and should be.

You can walk by a black guy and say "What's up nigga" and that's legal.

But, if you walk by a black guy and say/taunt "How ya doin nigga, you havin a good day nigga, where ya walkin to nigga, etc" that's illegal.

Insert [sir] for [nigga] and it becomes legal. Nigga is considered a derogatory word, just like b!tch, f*cker, slut, etc.

I see no reason for such a law against it to exist - it should definitely be discouraged, but why a law? I see a reason for laws against threats and promotion of violence - but not government punishment against simple offensive wording.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:44:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This doesn't sound like you Volkov. I approve.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:46:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I see no reason for such a law against it to exist - it should definitely be discouraged, but why a law? I see a reason for laws against threats and promotion of violence - but not government punishment against simple offensive wording.

good points
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:46:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:44:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This doesn't sound like you Volkov. I approve.

I did some soul searching.

But I believe I've said before that derogatory wording shouldn't be an offense punishable by law - threats of violence is what really matters. Maybe I haven't though.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:50:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:43:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:35:23 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, your example is called verbal harasssment. You can't walk around calling people names, that is illegal and should be.

You can walk by a black guy and say "What's up nigga" and that's legal.

But, if you walk by a black guy and say/taunt "How ya doin nigga, you havin a good day nigga, where ya walkin to nigga, etc" that's illegal.

Insert [sir] for [nigga] and it becomes legal. Nigga is considered a derogatory word, just like b!tch, f*cker, slut, etc.

I see no reason for such a law against it to exist - it should definitely be discouraged, but why a law? I see a reason for laws against threats and promotion of violence - but not government punishment against simple offensive wording.

A woman should not have to have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "fat-a$$ b!tchy slut" for no reason by any person.

A black guy should not have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "dumb-a$$ piece of sh!t nigga" for no reason by any reason.

There is no reason for derogatory/hurtful language like above (in public). In private, you can say whatever you want obviously.

Excuse my language/descriptions. Just trying to make my point.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:53:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not sure we discussed insults directed at a person, but your opinion on libel (which is also not a threat of violence) seems to conflict with that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:56:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:50:49 PM, Nags wrote:
A woman should not have to have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "fat-a$$ b!tchy slut" for no reason by any person.

A black guy should not have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "dumb-a$$ piece of sh!t nigga" for no reason by any reason.

There is no reason for derogatory/hurtful language like above (in public). In private, you can say whatever you want obviously.

Excuse my language/descriptions. Just trying to make my point.

No, of course not - but why should a person be worried they will be taken to jail for simply voicing their opinion? Social etiquette should be the deciding factors in this case - not the strong arm of the government, clamping down on someone just because a woman had her feelings hurt by some dumb*ss.

Years ago, it was a crime to swear in public - most people don't do it now because of the fact that it isn't seen as proper, but the government can't grab and charge you - ruining a lot of things in the process, including your ability to become employed - for uttering a simple word or phrase.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:59:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:53:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm not sure we discussed insults directed at a person, but your opinion on libel (which is also not a threat of violence) seems to conflict with that.

My opinion of libel extends to when it harms someone's reputation, which is tied to their ability to work and perform some services - when it harms something concrete like job performance, I'm for libel suits.

When it hurts something like your emotional state, then no - that isn't something concrete. It does not affect your ability to get a job because someone calls you fat - if someone says to a prospective employer, "he stole something at his past work," when it isn't true - that is libel, and something that will cost you something concrete.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:04:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I thought it was the people listening who caused that :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:07:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:56:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:50:49 PM, Nags wrote:
A woman should not have to have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "fat-a$$ b!tchy slut" for no reason by any person.

A black guy should not have to walk down the street and worry about being called a "dumb-a$$ piece of sh!t nigga" for no reason by any reason.

There is no reason for derogatory/hurtful language like above (in public). In private, you can say whatever you want obviously.

Excuse my language/descriptions. Just trying to make my point.

No, of course not - but why should a person be worried they will be taken to jail for simply voicing their opinion? Social etiquette should be the deciding factors in this case - not the strong arm of the government, clamping down on someone just because a woman had her feelings hurt by some dumb*ss.

I should've made my example better. A single statement is fine. But, if you're harassing someone for over 30 seconds with ethnic, racial, sexual, or derogatory statements you should at least be fined. Or the victim should have the ability to sue.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:04:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I thought it was the people listening who caused that :).

But they would not take those actions if not spurred on by those that told them the lie.

Plus, it is not the fault of the "listener" if they do not know it is a lie; it is the fault of the "speaker" if they knowingly spread the lie with the intent to harm the chances of the employee.

If I say to your employer, "Ragnar is a raving terrorist with a communist bent," and the employer believes as such and doesn't hire you based on that advice - even though it clearly is a lie - then I am at fault for starting the action that lead to your wrongful harm. The employer is not at fault, simply by virtue of being unaware that it was not the truth.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:14:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:07:05 PM, Nags wrote:
I should've made my example better. A single statement is fine. But, if you're harassing someone for over 30 seconds with ethnic, racial, sexual, or derogatory statements you should at least be fined. Or the victim should have the ability to sue.

Harassment is a different matter completely - 30 seconds of stupid derogatory speech though is not harassment. Harassment requires that it be continued beyond a reasonable point and usually more than one occurrence.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:21:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:14:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 9:07:05 PM, Nags wrote:
I should've made my example better. A single statement is fine. But, if you're harassing someone for over 30 seconds with ethnic, racial, sexual, or derogatory statements you should at least be fined. Or the victim should have the ability to sue.

Harassment is a different matter completely

I was talking about harassment the whole time, I don't know what you were thinking..

- 30 seconds of stupid derogatory speech though is not harassment. Harassment requires that it be continued beyond a reasonable point and usually more than one occurrence.

I beg to differ.

Let me get this straight,
You think it should be perfectly legal for someone to walk right next to you on public property and call you anything they want for at least 30 seconds as long as there is no threat of violence?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:27:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:21:07 PM, Nags wrote:
I beg to differ.

Let me get this straight,
You think it should be perfectly legal for someone to walk right next to you on public property and call you anything they want for at least 30 seconds as long as there is no threat of violence?

Yes, I do.

But, what I haven't said is that those being addressed by the remarks don't have avenues of escape - if you ask them to stop, and they don't stop, that then can be considered harassment.

You've made it clear you do not want these remarks directed to you, you've made it clear you want them to stop - if they do not, they've broken that idea of "reasonable limit." That is when they get into trouble.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:33:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:10:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 9:04:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I thought it was the people listening who caused that :).

But they would not take those actions if not spurred on by those that told them the lie.
No one would stab anyone with a knife if the production of knives were outlawed. Yet a knife manufacturer is not guilty of murder :)
Furthermore, firing someone when a contract doesn't forbid it isn't illegal for no cause at all, so how can it be illegal for a false one?


Plus, it is not the fault of the "listener" if they do not know it is a lie
What kind of idiot listens to random unverified statements?

If I say to your employer, "Ragnar is a raving terrorist with a communist bent," and the employer believes as such and doesn't hire you based on that advice - even though it clearly is a lie - then I am at fault for starting the action that lead to your wrongful harm.
There is no "legal wrongful harm" in not hiring me for one thing, for another, requiring the law to stop you rather than contesting your claims is near as good as admission anyway. :).

The employer is not at fault, simply by virtue of being unaware that it was not the truth.
Anyone stupid enough to believe me a communist is at fault for whatever faults there are in the situation :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:33:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:27:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 9:21:07 PM, Nags wrote:
I beg to differ.

Let me get this straight,
You think it should be perfectly legal for someone to walk right next to you on public property and call you anything they want for at least 30 seconds as long as there is no threat of violence?

Yes, I do.

But, what I haven't said is that those being addressed by the remarks don't have avenues of escape - if you ask them to stop, and they don't stop, that then can be considered harassment.

You've made it clear you do not want these remarks directed to you, you've made it clear you want them to stop - if they do not, they've broken that idea of "reasonable limit." That is when they get into trouble.

Well, yeah, I thought it was obvious that the person doesn't "want" to be harassed. So, if the person doesn't want to be harassed with my example given, you think it should be illegal?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:34:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Btw, how does simply repeating a speech make it any more harmful?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:45:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:33:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Furthermore, firing someone when a contract doesn't forbid it isn't illegal for no cause at all, so how can it be illegal for a false one?

As I said; it isn't the fault of the employer for not hiring based on a lie - it is the fault of the speaker when they initiate an action that causes the employer not to hire. It is a third-party manipulation of the result.

This applies to your knife analogy as well; the knife producer only made a product, much like the employer only makes the decision to hire - the stabber is the one that manipulates the product for use in murder, much like how the speaker manipulates the employer to deny the chance of employment.

What kind of idiot listens to random unverified statements?

A lot of them do, you would be surprised; but that doesn't matter. Their position does not require them to double check everything, only make the decision to hire or not - and when the third party manipulates that decision with false information, it shouldn't be tolerated, much like how manipulating election results isn't tolerated.

There is no "legal wrongful harm" in not hiring me for one thing, for another, requiring the law to stop you rather than contesting your claims is near as good as admission anyway. :).

There isn't a preventative law in place - it is a crime after-the-fact, for which you can suit the speaker for damaged caused.

Anyone stupid enough to believe me a communist is at fault for whatever faults there are in the situation :).

Again - employer isn't required to verify the facts. Their stupidity in not doing so has no bearing.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:50:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:33:51 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, yeah, I thought it was obvious that the person doesn't "want" to be harassed. So, if the person doesn't want to be harassed with my example given, you think it should be illegal?

Only if they make it known. If they don't make known their displeasure, how can you be sure they don't mind it?

Ragnar_Rahl said:
Btw, how does simply repeating a speech make it any more harmful?

It is harassment - continuing something when its abundantly clear that it isn't wanted is considered as such.

I never said it was necessarily more harmful than just saying it once; but when it continues past a reasonable limit, and it just becomes a constant annoyance or even harm, it should be considered illegal.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:59:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:45:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/11/2009 9:33:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Furthermore, firing someone when a contract doesn't forbid it isn't illegal for no cause at all, so how can it be illegal for a false one?

As I said; it isn't the fault of the employer for not hiring based on a lie - it is the fault of the speaker when they initiate an action that causes the employer not to hire. It is a third-party manipulation of the result.

This applies to your knife analogy as well; the knife producer only made a product, much like the employer only makes the decision to hire - the stabber is the one that manipulates the product for use in murder
The decision to hire or not is the "Stabbing" here. The analogy in fact operates inverse to your claim. You can, indeed, hire or not hire without so much as the "knife," so the knife manufacturer is, in strict causation, more responsible than the other guy.


What kind of idiot listens to random unverified statements?

A lot of them do, you would be surprised; but that doesn't matter. Their position does not require them to double check everything, only make the decision to hire or not - and when the third party manipulates that decision with false information, it shouldn't be tolerated, much like how manipulating election results isn't tolerated.
Manipulating election results... by making statements.
Thankfully, that IS tolerated-- rather than subjected to some court, which more than likely will decide you "lied" simply because the court disagrees with you :).


There is no "legal wrongful harm" in not hiring me for one thing, for another, requiring the law to stop you rather than contesting your claims is near as good as admission anyway. :).

There isn't a preventative law in place - it is a crime after-the-fact, for which you can suit the speaker for damaged caused.
That doesn't really affect the content of my statement :).


Anyone stupid enough to believe me a communist is at fault for whatever faults there are in the situation :).

Again - employer isn't required to verify the facts.
By their position, they are. Even in a society in which libel laws were enforced perfectly, people can make MISTAKEN statements, and any employer that believes those automatically will go out of business rater soon.

Their stupidity in not doing so has no bearing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 10:29:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:59:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The decision to hire or not is the "Stabbing" here. The analogy in fact operates inverse to your claim. You can, indeed, hire or not hire without so much as the "knife," so the knife manufacturer is, in strict causation, more responsible than the other guy.

I disagree; the knife manufacturer only provided the product, but the stabber is the one that manipulates the product. The employer provided the employment, and the speaker is the one that has manipulated that.

Manipulating election results... by making statements.
Thankfully, that IS tolerated-- rather than subjected to some court, which more than likely will decide you "lied" simply because the court disagrees with you :).

The court will decide whether or not you lied based on the evidence presented; whether or not you believe the court is corrupt or something is irrelevant. Go watch Judge Judy.

That doesn't really affect the content of my statement :).

It does; you're describing a law which stops libel from happening, which isn't what libel laws are. The law also does contest the claim; if it is found to be untrue and made maliciously, you have committed libel/slander/etc. The law doesn't just automatically assume that it be a lie; the plaintiff must prove it is a lie before any reparations are made.

By their position, they are. Even in a society in which libel laws were enforced perfectly, people can make MISTAKEN statements, and any employer that believes those automatically will go out of business rater soon.

You uttered the S-word - I'm surprised.

But you're wrong. If the speaker makes a mistaken statement, one that was not made maliciously or without knowledge of it being a lie, that person shouldn't be held accountable for actions that they didn't know they were committing.

The employer isn't required to verify either; they can make decisions to hire or not based on whatever they deem appropriate, to be honest, minus racial discrimination or things that have no bearing on the employment. And just because the employer might go out of business isn't an excuse to let individuals get away with libel and slander - just because "karma" will kick in some day doesn't mean those that were offended against will be justified.