Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through July 2, 2003

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » FIRST DAY OF SUMMER!!! THE JAPS SURRENDER!!! » Archive through July 2, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1087
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 2:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

No. Incitement to hatred is a crime in itself so people would be prosecuted for an actual crime i.e. incitement to hatred.




At best "incitement of hatred" is like prostitution or gambling or drug posession, which is to say, it is a crime-by-definition, not a crime-in-itself. Incitement to hate neither causes physical harm nor does it deprive anyone of their rights or property, so it cannot be a crime-in-itself like assault or burglary. The usual justification for creating crimes-by-definition is essentially the same one you are giving here, that certain acts are likely to lead to crimes-in-themselves, and so should be outlawed. Such justifications are usually very weak, and as prohibition and the drug war demostrate, creating crimes-by-definition tends to make matters worse.

But thank you, once again, for illustrating why, no matter how bad things get over here, I would rather be in the US than most of Europe. Even if we don't always live up to the standard we set, at least the US understands how free speech is supposed to work.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 274
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Again, I think it really comes down to two very different views of freedom, one possibly more socially-oriented than the other. Maybe North Americans should sharply limit criminalization of certain types of speech. Canada has or had a law criminalizing porn if it sufficiently degraded women (thanks Prof. MacKinnon!) and it was first used to shut down a lesbian bookshop. Meanwhile, Scientology has been trying to use hate-speech laws against its critics, though without much effect. I prefer the US model, but it doesn't prevent such grotesqueries as a perceived need to allow large corporate donations to politicians as "political speech." Nor does it prevent companies seriously trying to claim the "right to lie" as "freedom of [corporate] speech."

We'll just tote up all the points at the end when the world blows up, the Last Trump is sounded, or the universe collapses, whichever happens first.
Marc Chevalier (Chevalier)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Chevalier

Post Number: 1307
Registered: 11-2001


Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

So it's a crap shoot. If you say out loud "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?", and no one does, then you're off the hook.

But if someone does goes out and murder the bishop, than you're nicked.

It seems like a (too) sure way to keep you from sounding off.

Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 805
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 11:20 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"So you are prosecuting people for POTENTIAL crimes."

No. Incitement to hatred is a crime in itself so people would be prosecuted for an actual crime i.e. incitement to hatred.

As for rights, these are determined by the society you live in. If incitement to hatred is a crime then prosecuting someone for it is not infringing that person's rights since they don't have that right.

We could argue round and round about what constitutes freedom but personally I'd rather have the social freedoms that we have over here than have the freedom to deliberately incite hatred against a group of people.

Anyway we will never agree on this and personally I feel more happier with incitement to hatred laws (which are in force in the majority of Western democracies) than without.

Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1084
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 10:57 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Our legislation is intended to, in effect, act against the speechs and literature that result in violence, intimidation and discrimination.




So you are prosecuting people for POTENTIAL crimes. If something someone says leads to a crime, then you can prosecute them for the crime. Prosecuting people for speech alone is like that Tom Cruise movie with the psychic police...


quote:

The advantage of our legislation over yours is that we can act against those who incite violence but who are not stupid enough to actually directly tell people to beat up or kill blacks, immigrants, Jews etc.



And I;m sure searching people without warrants would give us an advantage in fighting crime, but that doesn't justify infrining people's basic rights.


quote:

To convict under our legislation it has to be proved that the speech/literature etc. resulted in actual harm against a group of people (violence, intimidation, discrimination etc.).



Violence is one thing. If you can show that an individual was influenced to commit an act of violence by some form of speech, it might be justified to charge the speaker. However "discrimination" is not a single, discrete event. It is a pattern of behavior, and, unless done under specific circumstances (in hiring, providing a commercial or government service, etc.) it is not a crime. There is no way you can connect a specific piece of speech with an ongoing pattern of behavior, especially against an ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE.

I'm not sure what "intimidation" is supposed to mean. If you mean "to cause to be in reasonable fear of physical harm", then that's assault and counts as violence. If you mean "to cause to feel inferior", well, then, you get into the same problems of a pattern of behavior and a very large group. An individual cannot do harm to an entire group.


quote:

The government cannot use this law as a tool for political control.



That's abundantly naive. That's like saying the government can't use drug laws (or sodomy laws) as a tool for political control because the jury decides guilt. The government decides who they are going to investigate and arrest under these laws.


quote:

This view is based on the assumption of majority racism.



Repeating an argument doesn't make it true.


quote:

To feel threatened by a group of people because they are a different colour to you is taking a rcist position.



I'm not saying that whites would feel threatened by the Nation of Islam because they are black. They would feel threatened because the NoI (sometimes) espouses hatred towards whites. Are you saying that blacks are being racist because they feel threatened by the KKK? It's all well and good to say you don't care about skin color, but when somebody ELSE cares about your skin color so much that they want to string you up, then you pay attention to such things.

My point was that anti-white racists would be more likely to be prosecuted under such laws simply because anti-white racists are advocating hatred towards the a larger, more powerful group of people.


quote:

Only if it was proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that the act of wiping out the Nazis was as a direct result of a leaflet or speech made by you to a group of people...




If speech leads directly to a CRIME, as I've said before, then it might be actionable. But hatred, discrimination (outside of an enforced, official or commercial capacity) and (non-specific) intimidation are not crimes in-and-of-themselves, so speech that leads to them cannot be a crime.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 272
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 10:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The idea of a state delicensing abortion, as a way of removing its "endorsement" of it I suppose, is an exercise in bad faith. Everything a doctor does, up to and including elective surgery, is "endorsed" by a state; otherwise, she can't practice medicine there. It's bad faith because this is an obvious though indirect attempt to make abortion impossible because the votes aren't there to outlaw it once and for all, even with the present Supreme Court. Appeals to religion haven't worked, nor have comparisons to slavery and the Holocaust or waving graphic signs in front of clinics. Tough state laws, like 10 years in prison in Louisiana, have fallen to Roe v. Wade.

I've been down the pennyroyal route. That was scary whatever the outcome (it worked, though).

A few years ago these people wanted states to require women's clinics to be certified like hospitals, knowing the extra costs would put most clinics out of business. Similarly, the "cooling off" or "alternatives counselling" idea would mean a woman (and possibly a friend) would have to make a second trip, not always easy to square with work. And "counselling" costs are passed to the patient.

This isn't about a "right" to have an abortion. Some doctors, like my brother, will not perform them and they don't have to. Roe vs. Wade only says that no state can limit abortion, up to the 2nd trimester; in the third, states must allow abortion at least in the case of rape or harm to the mother (I think), but these groups are trying to override the decision in other ways.

Anyway, three cheers for SCOTUS wiping the Texas sodomy law on the basis of privacy. Privacy is not an enumerated right, but a modern, pluralistic society is impossible without it. (former) Judge Bork must be choking on his bile right now.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 271
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 10:00 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

But did the Japs actually surrender? <--cool! Hand o' Glory (as opposed to Hole o' Glory)

It looks to me like historical context has the most to do with the respective approaches taken by the US and most of the "West" to laws about speech. European laws on it give society's demands more weight than US laws do. At least certain events from about 1923 to 1945 have a lot to do with it. But there's also a vested interest, in that many of the framers of the US Constitution used anonymous or pseudonymous writings to make their political points; debate and the spread of ideas for them were trumped the law. By the way, in England about that time, pamphlets, like John Wilkes' notorious No. 45, were also widely used at a critical time in English history. (Of course this didn't stop President Washington from signing the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1791 or thenabouts.)

The theory goes that society benefits by keeping its speech in the open. Bad speech can be countered by counterargument and ridicule. Besides, this way it's easier to track, because ideas spread faster than w4r3Z, drugs and cheap handguns, so there's a practical matter. I agree with the general trend to outlaw harmful speech only according to its immediacy, such as egging on a mob.

Outside of rigidly defined limits, limiting speech is a slippery slope and has been used more often to silence unpopular ideas than to actually stop "harm," as Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedy's (RIP the band) found out over 15 years ago. The State of California tried to bust him for including in a record album some artwork that commented, grossly but astutely (I think anyway), on US consumer society of the time.

I like the idea of weighing social as well as individual needs when making laws, but these days I appreciate the U.S. approach more. Society is being dominated by corporate pressure-group diktat, and politicians aren't doing much to stop it. That means individuals are handicapped coming out of the gate. Legal recourse is a joke when any contact with the courts can mean financial ruin. So in speech, and maybe in general, individuals (NOT corporate "persons") should have a slight advantage.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 803
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 - 11:34 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"OK, how about saying that a group of people are sub-human animals, or deserving of violence, death and horrible diseases. Because there are religions, even major ones, that have said such things about various groups."

If the outcome of such speechs or literature can be proven to have directly resulted in an increase in the hatred (which is measured by the actions resulting from hatred).

Our legislation is intended to, in effect, act against the speechs and literature that result in violence, intimidation and discrimination. The advantage of our legislation over yours is that we can act against those who incite violence but who are not stupid enough to actually directly tell people to beat up or kill blacks, immigrants, Jews etc. You can incite violence through hatred without actually giving literal instructions.

"Only if that speech will likely cause direct, immediate, physical harm. Opinions do not hurt people. Only ACTING on those opinions does."

Our legislation does not prevent people holding or expressing opinions, no matter how odious these opinions may be. To convict under our legislation it has to be proved that the speech/literature etc. resulted in actual harm against a group of people (violence, intimidation, discrimination etc.). Expressing an opinion with a direct view to cause hatred leading to intimidation, violence, discrimination is an offence (and so it should be).

"No, my assumption is based on a) the history of enforcement of bias-related laws in the US and b) that since whites have more political power, the groups threatening to them would get the most attention."

This view is based on the assumption of majority racism. People will only hold a white v's black view of society if they view colour as being of extreme importance. I do believe that most people couldn't really care less about skin colour. To feel threatened by a group of people because they are a different colour to you is taking a rcist position.

From what little I have heard of the Nation of Islam the main targets of their hate seem to be Jews. A black person is as much my brother as a Jew, asian or Anglo-Saxon person. For most people a person's colour or religion is a minor concern.

To take sides saying it wouldn't be fair to silence much of the rantings of the nation of Islam if the KKK are not silenced (or vice-versa) is to align yourself with one or other of these scumbag organisations just because they are the same colour as yourself.

"Only action can. If you empower the government to enjoin speech, you are empowing it to punish people for simply THINKING things."

The legislation exists to punish those who have deliberately used speech or printed material to stir up hatred in order to result in the actions of hatred (violence, intimidation etc.). As I've said before you don't have to actually tell someone "Go beat up a nigger" in order to deliberately persuade him to do so. And this legislation is not empowering the government to punish people for thinking, the government has no say whatsoever on who is prosecuted under this legislation, that is decided by a jury. The government cannot use this law as a tool for political control.

"Let me put this a different way. I hate Nazis. I want kick them in the teeth. I think that is the least of what they deserve. I actively encourage others to feel this way. If they were all wiped out in an...unfortunate accident, I would do a happy dance. Is this criminal?"

Only if it was proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that the act of wiping out the Nazis was as a direct result of a leaflet or speech made by you to a group of people (who already hold similar views to you on this) and it was proven that the act of wiping out the Nazis was the general intention motivating your speech or leaflet and that you intended that the hatred of your audience against the Nazis would increase as a result of your speech/leaflet with a view to them acting on this hatred. Then your lawyers could argue about whether your hatred of the Nazis was motivated by bigotry or not and whether or not your hatred was 'reasonable'.

It is very hard to get a conviction using this legislation but it does send an important message about what is acceptable in a pluralist, democratic society.
Quidam (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 843
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

The Constitution does not GRANT rights




Of course I know that. What I meant was, those are rights specifically mentioned by the Constitution as things in which the government would not interfere. I withdraw. You make some very good points, as usual.


quote:

Also, I wasn't really taking a poke at you as much as observing a process of human interaction, because the same thing happens with me and my assumptions. I often find my own principles or behaviors in need of reevaluation due to exchanges much like the one you described.




That being the case, a simple "amen" from you would have gone further toward getting me to open up in the future than a slap, which only made me want to slap you back. Thanks for the explanation though, it makes you seem a little more human (where have I heard that before?).



Quelle vie ont eue nos grands-parents
Entre l'absinthe et les grands-messes... ?

Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1082
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Saying a group of people are going to go to hell does not fall into this.



OK, how about saying that a group of people are sub-human animals, or deserving of violence, death and horrible diseases. Because there are religions, even major ones, that have said such things about various groups.


quote:

Your assumption is made on the basis that the majority of white people are racist and will make their decision based on colour rather than on the basis of the hatred spewed by a particular group.



No, my assumption is based on a) the history of enforcement of bias-related laws in the US and b) that since whites have more political power, the groups threatening to them would get the most attention.


quote:

It is reasonable for our right to speak as we please to be limited in order to protect others from harm deliberately caused by us to them by our speech.




Only if that speech will likely cause direct, immediate, physical harm. Opinions do not hurt people. Only ACTING on those opinions does.

Let me put this a different way. I hate Nazis. I want kick them in the teeth. I think that is the least of what they deserve. I actively encourage others to feel this way. If they were all wiped out in an...unfortunate accident, I would do a happy dance. Is this criminal?

The right to hate is implicit in the right to free thought. If people are not free to communicate their beliefs, however unpleasant, then freedom of speech is meaningless. Speech cannot harm people. Belief cannot harm people. Only action can. If you empower the government to enjoin speech, you are empowing it to punish people for simply THINKING things.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 802
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 12:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Blackjack,

The incitement to hatred legislation makes it a criminal offence to publicly threaten, vilify or degrade people because of their race. Saying a group of people are going to go to hell does not fall into this. Our government does not decide what groups fall into the category of inciting hatred, this is decided on an individual basis in a court of law. It has to be proved in a court of law that the intent was to deliberately cause harm to a particular group of people by inciting hatred against them. Threatening, abusive or insulting material aimed at the general public or ethnic groups itself is not necessarily incitement to hatred as it is likey to provoke disgust amongst most people rather than hatred. It is therefore extremely difficult to prosecute under this legislation. Its actually easier to prosecute someone if they send racist material to another racist or make a racist speech to other racists beacuse this is easier to prove that hatred would be incited rather than disgust. It has to be proved that hatred was actually incited. Shouting "murderer" at a women entering an abortion clinic is not inciting the public to hatred, that is a case of someone expressing their own view at a particular person and would not fall with the incitement to hatred legislation (although you could argue it was slander).

"I can guarantee you that the Nation of Islam would be silenced by any law restricting "hate speech" long before the KKK was, simply because there are more white people than black."

We too have a white majority in the UK (the UK is over 96% white) but the groups mainly affected by this legislation are neo-Nazi groups. Your assumption is made on the basis that the majority of white people are racist and will make their decision based on colour rather than on the basis of the hatred spewed by a particular group. I would argue that for most people the colour of a person's skin is a minor consideration. Of the 2 groups you mention I'd say that both groups spew enough hatred to warrant limiting much of what they currently say.

Any half-intelligent shit-stirring bigotted group can incite people to commit violence without actually literally telling them to commit violence. Just publicly incite people to hate and violence will follow as surely as night follows day.

Harm can be caused by malicious speech just as harm can be caused by malicious deeds. Governments limit our right to act as we please in order to protect others from harm deliberately caused by us to them by our actions. It is reasonable for our right to speak as we please to be limited in order to protect others from harm deliberately caused by us to them by our speech.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me' is bollocks. Speech can be a very harmful tool and is deliberately used by twisted, hate-filled, shit-stirers used cause harm to certain groups of people. It is only right that these groups of people should be protected from such harm. Incitement to hatred legislation should is not about infringing free speech, but about promoting and protecting the values and principles of a free and democratic society.
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 479
Registered: 12-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Good question. Most of us would say that fucking pretty clearly falls under the general heading of "the pursuit of happiness", which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as an inalienable right. But that still leaves open the question of how, why, and whom one is allowed to fuck, as at the time of the Declaration not all types of fucking were considered equal.
"Drink accomplished what God did not." --Marguerite Duras
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1079
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:21 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

My god, how the principles evaporate when the risk of Not Getting Any emerges...



One could make a similar argument (not that I would agree with it at all) in regards to abortion, to whit, that the only reason abortion is necessary (other than in cases of rape) is that women chose to have sex.

Which raises the question (mostly avoided in the recent SCOTUS sodomy decision) of whether there is an unenumerated fundemental right to fuck.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1078
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

It's specified in the Constitution, that's what. Nothing about abortion in there.



The Constitution does not GRANT rights. This is something I wish Scallia and Thomas would get through their thick skulls as well. The Constitution may place specific limits on the federal government's ability to infringe on some rights, but the rights themselves are inherent in the people.

"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

Indeed, one of the primary objections to the Bill of Rights was the fear that including specific rights would be seen as excluding others.

There are numerous rights, generally or universally upheld by the courts, which are not enumerated. The rights to marry (for male-female couples, anyway), to procreate and raise children, to defend oneself, even to own property and enter contracts, are not to be found in the Constitution. Another of those rights, upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions, is the right to privacy, upon which the right to abortion is based under present interpretation.

Unless you're ready to give up your right to property, you should not be relying on the Constitution as the list of all your rights.


quote:

That's not even a reasonable expectation, much less a "right".



I'm not talking about having the cop jump in and stop a crime from happening. I'm talking about the right to have crimes against your person or property investigated and prosecuted. It might not always happen, but our entire justice system is built around the idea that it is a right shared by all people.

Some might argue that this is a collective right, that crimes are cmmitted against society and not against individuals. Either way, it is an unenumerated right.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1077
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Afterall the person inciting others to violence is not committing violence themselves but expressing their own view.



Our Supreme Curt has set out a very strict set of guidelines in defining what sort of speech can be restricted. Among other things, the speech must present a clear a present danger, meaning that the circumstances must be such that there is a realistic expectation that violence will ensue immediately. Saying "the government should be overthrown" in a pamphlet is protected. Saying "let's go burn down the capitol" to an aggitated mob isn't. Likewise, any limit on speech must be made in the least restrictive manner possible.

We are very very wary of any restrictions on free speech, and must often defer to our courts for guidence. A recent case involved an anti-abortion website that published a "hit list" of abortion doctors' pictures and addresses. The court ruled that the web site was in fact making what could be reasonably viewed as threats against these doctors, and even then the court was split.


quote:

People are free to publically express political opinion so long as that opinion does not involves vilifying a set group of people and inciting hatred against them.



The problem there is that someone has to decide what defines "villifying" and "inciting hatred". A great many religious groups in the US villify gays, even Jews. Is simply saying that someone is going to Hell an incitment to hatred?

Here's the real issue: if you give the government the power to restrict speech, it will end up using it to enforce the feelings of the majority, not to protect minorities. I can guarantee you that the Nation of Islam would be silenced by any law restricting "hate speech" long before the KKK was, simply because there are more white people than black. Already our laws against "hate crimes" (violent crimes aggrievated by a bias motivation) are used disproportionately against blacks, even against black-on-black crimes.


quote:

The only groups in reality that are affected by this law are neo-Nazis and certain extreme religious clerics.




Who gets to make that judgement? Is screaming "murderer!" at a woman going into an abortion clinic an act of hate? I'd say so, but I don't want the government enorcing that. Plenty of people view supporting Israel as an act of hate againse Palestinians, or supporting Palestinians as an act of hate against Jews.

What I'm getting to is that we cannot legislate hate speech away without giving the government the power to silence any unpopular speech. The best we can do is intervene when someone advocates SPECIFIC ACTS OF VIOLENCE.


quote:

If you really feel that people should have an absolute right to unfettered free speech then you should want to scrap your own incitement to violence law along with your libel, slander' laws aginst verbal assault and probably also copyright laws.




Libel and slander are only actionable if the communication is untrue, done with malice, AND can be shown to have done harm to the person. This falls into the same category as fraud. It is not the content of the speech that is punished, but its results.

If someones speech directly results in the commission of a crime, the speaker is liable. If I tell someone "go kill a Jew" and they do it, I'm going to share their culpability. A case a few years back in which two people were attacked by members of a white supremacist organization lead to victims' winning all of the assets of that organization.

Speach that LEADS to a crime can be limited, but speach in and of itself isn't the crime.

As for copyright, that is COMMERCIAL speech, and a whole other barrel of fish.
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 477
Registered: 12-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 8:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"...you might see something about an attempt to reevaluate principals in the light of an assumed understanding between people that was badly in need of reexamination. Or maybe I wasn't clear. Or maybe you saw it the first time and were just being a smartass."

The last is correct. And yes, it was rather cheap of me, but not entirely meaningless, especially in light of your periodic remarks about Clinton, who was willing to lie to Congress in order (he says) to protect his family from public humiliation. Of course, I hate defending Clinton. He's a product of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose objective was to get more corporate money for the Democrats by making them more like Republicans. But I prefer to see him insulted for the right reasons.

Also, I wasn't really taking a poke at you as much as observing a process of human interaction, because the same thing happens with me and my assumptions. I often find my own principles or behaviors in need of reevaluation due to exchanges much like the one you described.

Just this evening someone chastised me for referring to the Nation (journal) as "total promiscuous whores" because of their habit of selling their mailing list to all and sundry (subscribe to the Nation just once and you will be bombarded with Democratic and 'charitable' junk mail for years).

My friend pointed out that if I really believe sex workers are not (or should not be) criminals, then I shouldn't go around using metaphors like this one, and she was right.

"However, you've shown me that sharing such personal details here is a waste of time, at least for me..."

Suit yourself. It does open you up to the occasional cheap shot, but it also makes you seem a little more human, and I would honestly hate to see you give that up. You sound less like a right-wing 'shock jock' or a defense industry shill when you actually talk about your own values and how they affect your relationships with people around you.

You have written before (in response to Blackjack) that you can't imagine how some of us could actually believe the shit we post here. The same goes for me and a good deal of what you write, but describing your own life and the choices you've made makes it easier to understand you, if not agree with you. Isn't that what it's all about?

"Drink accomplished what God did not." --Marguerite Duras
Quidam (Artemis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Artemis

Post Number: 841
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

My God, how the principles evaporate when the risk of Not Getting Any emerges




I couldn't say, but if you read what I wrote again you might see something about an attempt to reevaluate principals in the light of an assumed understanding between people that was badly in need of reexamination. Or maybe I wasn't clear. Or maybe you saw it the first time and were just being a smartass. However, you've shown me that sharing such personal details here is a waste of time, at least for me, so thank you. Really.


quote:

What about the right to be represented by an attorney?




It's specified in the Constitution, that's what. Nothing about abortion in there.


quote:

For that matter, the right to be protected by police from harm




That's not even a reasonable expectation, much less a "right".


quote:

or to be represented in the government by an elected official?




Constitution.


quote:

All of these things constitute a "service" performed by someone.




You're really reaching.


quote:

... "liberals" (whatever the hell that means)




You know exactly what it means, but your point about various people doing it is well taken.


quote:

isn't the suggestion that all persons of a certain political persuasion are lacking in argumentative skills a lovely example of "falling back on an insult"?




So you know what liberal means after all, then: people of a certain political persuasion. And you even know which persuasion. See, that wasn't so hard. Isn't the suggestion that someone means "all" when they write "majority" kind of a disconnect between your eyeball and your brain? If criticizing someone's argumentative skills after they've ended an argument with "bite me" is an insult, than I guess I'm insulting.
Quelle vie ont eue nos grands-parents
Entre l'absinthe et les grands-messes... ?

Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 801
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 10:18 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

""You've got a better chance of stopping the violence by stopping incitement to hatred." That is quite like saying that we might have a better chance of stopping crime if we started searching people without warrents. The danger presented by abridging the right to express politcial opinions is far far greater than that presented by allowing hate groups to speak, because once you give the government power to decide which opinions can and can't be expressed, freedom of speech is meaningless."

Governments decide what is and is not a crime. There are no definitive list of what is and what is not a crime, that varies from country to country, state to state. In your country incitement to violence is a crime therefore you are in effect giving your government the power to infringe on the right of free speech and prevent a certain political view to be expressed. Afterall the person inciting others to violence is not committing violence themselves but expressing their own view.

People are free to publically express political opinion so long as that opinion does not involves vilifying a set group of people and inciting hatred against them. The only groups in reality that are affected by this law are neo-Nazis and certain extreme religious clerics. As well as leading to violence and intimidation, incitement to hatred is an abusive assault on groups of people.

If you really feel that people should have an absolute right to unfettered free speech then you should want to scrap your own incitement to violence law along with your libel, slander' laws aginst verbal assault and probably also copyright laws.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1076
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 8:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

if that is in fact what you are proposing.




I was not proposing it by any stretch. I was just saying that, if it came to that, it need not be the kind of butchering that went on in the past. For people who can afford it, anyway. Reproductive rights in the developing world are another matter, and a far more dire one.
steena faustus (Faustus)
Mousquetaire
Username: Faustus

Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 8:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Quote: As far as taking doctors out of the equation and women performing their own abortions, technology has advanced in the past 30 years to the point that this is less perilous than it once was.

That is true, we have new drugs and what not now. However, it seems to me that it would be a barbaric step backward in time to limit "legal abortions" to those performed by women on themselves... if that is in fact what you are proposing. Even using abortive drugs usually involves the advice and oversight of a physician, or at least an RN. Also, the drugs are not always easy to get, and their effectiveness is often limited to very, very early in the pregnancy. Hence the term "morning after pill." Misuse of a drug intended for "the morning after" late in the pregnancy could result in miscarriage, deformity, or other problems that could affect both the health of the mother and the baby, if the baby indeed survives. It reminds me of jumping exercises and pennyroyal tea. Surely we've moved on.
}
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 6:52 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Don't be like the majority of liberals, who, when their argument fails them, fall back on an insult and sign off."

this is true of the majority of PEOPLE, but the generalization about "liberals" (whatever the hell that means) is just silly.

in any case. isn't the suggestion that all persons of a certain political persuasion are lacking in argumentative skills a lovely example of "falling back on an insult"?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1075
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 6:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

BTW, there are to my knowlege no laws compelling physycians to perform abortions. Indeed, in much of the south, abortion is effectively unavailible to those who can't afford to travel because there are no abortion providers within many hours drive.

(FWIW, the euphamism for "abortion rights" in Ireland is "right to travel", since women must travel to the UK to get one...)

The legal foundation of the Roe v. Wade decision (which I find unsettlingly weak, myself) is not one of a specific right to have an abortion, but a right to privacy between a woman and her physician. It isn't (under prevailing legal interpretation) a right to have any particular service preformed. It is the right to not have the government dictating what medical procedures are appropriate.

As far as taking doctors out of the equation and women performing their own abortions, technology has advanced in the past 30 years to the point that this is less perilous than it once was. Now that we have relatively safe abortifaciant drugs like RU-486, any attempts to legislate abortion away could well be as ineffective as drug prohibition or gun control.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1072
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 4:12 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

They don't extend to receiving services you want just because you want them and somebody is willing to perform them.




What about the right to be represented by an attorney? For that matter, the right to be protected by police from harm, or to be represented in the government by an elected official? All of these things constitute a "service" performed by someone.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1071
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 4:08 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

You've got a better chance of stopping the violence by stopping incitement to hatred.



That is quite like saying that we might have a better chance of stopping crime if we started searching people without warrents. The danger presented by abridging the right to express politcial opinions is far far greater than that presented by allowing hate groups to speak, because once you give the government power to decide which opinions can and can't be expressed, freedom of speech is meaningless.

Only a person with a very weak position seeks to silence the opposition. Racism is illogical and stupid, and most people can be made to understand that without censorship.
Pervert Euchre (Perruche_verte)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Perruche_verte

Post Number: 476
Registered: 12-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

My god, how the principles evaporate when the risk of Not Getting Any emerges...
"Drink accomplished what God did not." --Marguerite Duras

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page