Conservatives can be nuts too.

[Zymologist]

Big discussion. Possibly a new thread I think. At first blush, the good old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a good one. Next might be speech that directly encourages violence.

I'm more curious to hear about "hate speech": what it should include, what it shouldn't include, etc. Not so much examples like yelling "fire" in a theater.

[pancreasman]

I'm more curious to hear about "hate speech": what it should include, what it shouldn't include, etc. Not so much examples like yelling "fire" in a theater.

In OZ we're in the middle of this debate (as much as we debate anything except is it time for another beer?) We have a section of legislation 18C, that makes it an offence to cause 'offence' to someone on the grounds of ethnicity, gender etc. It is very rarely used. The penalties are financial I think. More often (and still rarely) offended parties take action through the civil courts. The conservative government came in gangbusters set to repeal that section with our Attorney General saying people had a right to be bigots. They suffered a massive reaction from immigrant sectors and stopped.

[JonathanL]

As a person living in Finland I'm automatically qualified to comment on US policies and I think the US should make the act of criticizing anything or anyone at all fall under the definition of hate speech and make it punishable by inprisonment for life.

[pancreasman]

As a person living in Finland I'm automatically qualified to comment on US policies and I think the US should make the act of criticizing anything or anyone at all fall under the definition of hate speech and make it punishable by inprisonment for life.

Wait ... are you trolling??

[JonathanL]

Wait ... are you trolling??

That's for me to know and for you to agonize about.

[KingsGambit]

Hate speech laws are counterproductive in my view. Hate speech is generally illegal in western Europe, but racism hasn't been curtailed there at all; a very high population of France's population admits to being anti-Semitic and seemingly every week there's a racial event at some European soccer game. I suspect that driving hate speech underground makes it seem more attractive, whereas if it's allowed in the open it can be be challenged.

Also, from a Christian perspective, it's concerning. A Swedish pastor was prosecuted a few years ago for preaching against homosexuality and his language was really no stronger than what you would find in the Bible.

[pancreasman]

Hate speech laws are counterproductive in my view. Hate speech is generally illegal in western Europe, but racism hasn't been curtailed there at all; a very high population of France's population admits to being anti-Semitic and seemingly every week there's a racial event at some European soccer game. I suspect that driving hate speech underground makes it seem more attractive, whereas if it's allowed in the open it can be be challenged.

Also, from a Christian perspective, it's concerning. A Swedish pastor was prosecuted a few years ago for preaching against homosexuality and his language was really no stronger than what you would find in the Bible.

I'm not sure where I stand. Usually, I'm very pro free speech, regardless. I think banning things makes them attractive.

Here's a 'thing' happening here that I think has some analogies. The conservative government has just announced it is withdrawing chid care supplements and tax benefits from people who do not vaccinate their children. Government interference? Or public good? In a similar way, I think the value of free speech has to carefully weighed against the potential harm to the community said speech may encourage. I still think idiots should be allowed full reign to their idiocy. I used to think exposing them would let people see they're intellectually barren. Now, I'm not so sure because ... many people are dumb.

[KingsGambit]

I'm not sure where I stand. Usually, I'm very pro free speech, regardless. I think banning things makes them attractive.

Here's a 'thing' happening here that I think has some analogies. The conservative government has just announced it is withdrawing chid care supplements and tax benefits from people who do not vaccinate their children. Government interference? Or public good? In a similar way, I think the value of free speech has to carefully weighed against the potential harm to the community said speech may encourage. I still think idiots should be allowed full reign to their idiocy. I used to think exposing them would let people see they're intellectually barren. Now, I'm not so sure because ... many people are dumb.

I don't really have a philosophical problem with that because nobody is owed a tax benefit or a supplement to begin with; you're not taking away something they already had. (I'm assuming they do make an exception for cases like where children are allergic to vaccines.) I also think the case is different with children. I have no problem with the government intervening in those cases where some parent has peculiar religious beliefs and refuses to let them see a doctor for a life threatening situation, because the child is not old enough to make that decision that may prove fatal.

[KingsGambit]

Big discussion. Possibly a new thread I think. At first blush, the good old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a good one. Next might be speech that directly encourages violence.

Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable defends nearly every free speech "exception" one can think of (extortion, fire in a theater, threats, etc.) Some of his arguments are fascinated. Some of them are downright awful.

The only thing I can think of that he doesn't defend is child pornography... and while one can argue that it isn't speech per se, he does devote a chapter to pornography in general.

https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable

[JonathanL]

Some of his arguments are fascinated.

Are you sure?

[KingsGambit]

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure that I type too fast.

[Irate Canadian]

I don't get the point of these threads... Both conservatives and liberals can be morons, and some clearly are.... is there any point to making a vague omnibus thread for stupid "liberal" things and stupid "conservative" things.

[pancreasman]

I don't get the point of these threads... Both conservatives and liberals can be morons, and some clearly are.... is there any point to making a vague omnibus thread for stupid "liberal" things and stupid "conservative" things.

Absolutely not. And that is entirely my point! Civics is routinely filled with threads whining about allegedly dumb things some liberal somewhere has done. What's the point?

[Zymologist]

It might be easier to just have a unifying thread devoted to stupid people everywhere, of any political persuasion.

[JonathanL]

It might be easier to just have a unifying thread devoted to stupid people everywhere, of any political persuasion.

We have that already, it's called the "[Current Month] [Current Year] Screwballs"-thread.