Where does free speech end?

[MoragCampbell]

It is far more important that free speech be protected than that people not be offended.

Is it?

I would have thought the point of regulating discriminatory speech is to promote social change. I'm no history buff but I was under the impression that racial discrimination has resulted in pretty massive injustices in the past, which I imagine are still pretty fresh in the minds of even newer generations. Is it not worth suffering the substantially lesser injustice of regulations on discriminatory speech, for the sake of promoting social change, encouraging future generations to be more accepting rather than allowing any old twat to promote hatred in a public place?

I wish people would not get so offended by words but a lot of people do. It does annoy me that speech is being restricted even if I don't agree with what is being said, but I have been thinking about it recently and I wonder if I am being stubborn, simply demanding my right to say whatever I want just because, without really thinking about the potential benefit for future generations by cutting out some of the potential racial tension, I imagine this would increase if people started posting messages of hate in public places.

Am I over simplifying?

I guess maybe education is enough to create a social situation where people are shunned for displaying racist tendencies but I'm not entirely convinced given that many people are not educated. To be honest I am still quite unsure what I think.

 

[Clippy]

You surely must see how a section of society being treated as second class citizens is going to cause a devestating affect to social cohesion.

Self-segregation is not treating other communities as second-class citizens. This is free association. I think people should be able to choose whom they want in their communities. It seems that you do not.

Do you think child labour laws should be enforced? After all, nobody is made ill by those.

This is as irrelevant as your hair net example. Do you think people living in communities of their own choosing is comparable to child labor?

What do you think are the benefits of forced integration? And to whom?

 

[KingMerv00]

Forced integration doesn't look to be much of a success. What do you recommend?

In what sense has it not been a success?

 

[Rat]

Whenever I see "X go home", I am reminded of the Life Of Brian, in the "Romans go home" graffiti bit. Therefore I always read it in the indicative as a general statement, and then wonder why someone's telling me that someone else is going home.

 

[Lothian]

Just after the 'h'.

 

[Clippy]

In what sense has it not been a success?

Well, for one, you have more than 750,000 interracial violent crimes per year, 85% of which are committed by blacks against whites. I realize this is going to upset a lot of people here, but that's the reality. Hard to see any success which could justify this.

 

[Michael Redman]

Well, for one, you have more than 750,000 interracial violent crimes per year, 85% of which are committed by blacks against whites. I realize this is going to upset a lot of people here, but that's the reality. Hard to see any success which could justify this.

Did you make that up yourself?

 

[Clippy]

Did you make that up yourself?

Those are the facts.

 

[Lallante]

Those are the facts.

This is ******** for one simple reason: it considers ALL crimes in which the victim is a different skin colour than the perp to be a 'race crime'. It would be interesting if it had statistics on racially motivate crime.

 

[Michael Redman]

An example of why I hold this belief:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100833-groups-want-fcc-to-police-hate-speech

Your belief is based on the fact that someone wrote a letter? Seriously? You're drawing conclusions about the future of Supreme Court decisions from a letter the FCC hasn't even bothered to respond to?

Those are the facts.

You misrepresent your racist literature. It doesn't say what you claim it does. Plus, it's conclusions are crap for reasons that should be obvious: http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform.../browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crime

More importantly, it doesn't answer for the purpose for which you cited it. It doesn't show that integration is in any way responsible for the interracial violence it claims.

So, are you going to answer for your misrepresentation of the Kagen article?

 

[slingblade]

Those are the facts.

You might want to take a hard look at your source, there:

The New Century Foundation was founded in 1994 as a United States 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization to "study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America’s increasing diversity." Since 1994 it has received support from the Pioneer Fund and is dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation. Dinesh D'Souza has described its activities as "white racism".[1][2]

[1] ^ Tucker 2002, p. 182-184
[2] ^ D'Souza 1995, p. 396

Citing statistics loses value when you use questionable sources with an obvious bias. Your assertion carries no weight with me, given its source. Try another? Also try considering that reported crime is a far different statistic than committed crime, and that there's likely racism being used to skew the data.

Fail, sorry.

 

[slingblade]

Is it?

I would have thought the point of regulating discriminatory speech is to promote social change.

Regulating such speech simply drives it underground, where it thrives unchecked. You don't force people to stop saying a thing and call it victory. All you've done is shut them up in public. They still think the same things, because they haven't changed how they think.

I'm no history buff but I was under the impression that racial discrimination has resulted in pretty massive injustices in the past, which I imagine are still pretty fresh in the minds of even newer generations. Is it not worth suffering the substantially lesser injustice of regulations on discriminatory speech, for the sake of promoting social change, encouraging future generations to be more accepting rather than allowing any old twat to promote hatred in a public place?

So it's better if I say certain things secretly, out of hearing, to only those I know won't turn me in for saying them? That we get together to grumble about the lesser humans, fomenting our hatred unchecked, in the shadows?

Or do I let every idiot on the street clearly air his views so that we ALL know just where the idiot stands, and can take action if needed?

I wish people would not get so offended by words but a lot of people do. It does annoy me that speech is being restricted even if I don't agree with what is being said, but I have been thinking about it recently and I wonder if I am being stubborn, simply demanding my right to say whatever I want just because, without really thinking about the potential benefit for future generations by cutting out some of the potential racial tension, I imagine this would increase if people started posting messages of hate in public places.

What do you mean, "if they started?" What evidence have you that this has ever stopped?

Am I over simplifying?

I don't think you're really considering what you suggest, no. You don't eliminate a negative by ignoring it, forcing it to hide itself, making it become secretive.

I guess maybe education is enough to create a social situation where people are shunned for displaying racist tendencies but I'm not entirely convinced given that many people are not educated. To be honest I am still quite unsure what I think.

Depends on what you mean by "educated." School isn't the only place learning happens, you know.

 

[Clippy]

Your belief is based on the fact that someone wrote a letter? Seriously? You're drawing conclusions about the future of Supreme Court decisions from a letter the FCC hasn't even bothered to respond to?

An example. And it was written by more than 'someone.'

You misrepresent your racist literature. It doesn't say what you claim it does. Plus, it's conclusions are crap for reasons that should be obvious: http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform.../browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crime

For starters, the report was from 2005, while your SPLC article is from 2000.

What do you mean by misrepresenting and crap? Are the numbers wrong? You can argue all you want about whether socio-economic factors are responsible for this level of crime. It doesn't change what the numbers are.

More importantly, it doesn't answer for the purpose for which you cited it. It doesn't show that integration is in any way responsible for the interracial violence it claims.

If communities could self-segregate, they could do more to protect themselves from interracial crime. You did not have this rate of black-on-white crime 100 years ago.

So, are you going to answer for your misrepresentation of the Kagen article?

I made a simple reference to her phrase and judicial activism. If you don't think that Kagan and the Supreme Court judges will eventually reinterpret 1st amendment rights, fine. I don't care.

 

[Clippy]

You might want to take a hard look at your source, there:




Citing statistics loses value when you use questionable sources with an obvious bias. Your assertion carries no weight with me, given its source. Try another? Also try considering that reported crime is a far different statistic than committed crime, and that there's likely racism being used to skew the data.

Fail, sorry.

Did you expect the NYT or SPLC to report these facts?

 

[Clippy]

Also try considering that reported crime is a far different statistic than committed crime, and that there's likely racism being used to skew the data.

Fail, sorry.

The report discusses the results from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which shows that these ratios hold when considering reported crime. Blacks are not being arrested or convicted disproportionately.

 

[Clippy]

Jared Taylor on SPLC criticism of the Color of Crime report:

http://vdare.com/taylor/070913_splc.htm

 

[KingMerv00]

Well, for one, you have more than 750,000 interracial violent crimes per year, 85% of which are committed by blacks against whites. I realize this is going to upset a lot of people here, but that's the reality. Hard to see any success which could justify this.

Let me see if I have this straight. It is a failure because white people are getting hurt. If we were living in a segregated society and blacks only hurt blacks, that would not be a problem?

 

[Michael Redman]

An example. And it was written by more than 'someone.'

An example of someone writing a letter to the FCC is not evidence that the Courts will curtail the 1st Amendment, no matter who wrote the letter.

For starters, the report was from 2005, while your SPLC article is from 2000.

And yet you link to a reply to the SPLC article from Jared Taylor. Do you think you might be missing something here?

What do you mean by misrepresenting and crap? Are the numbers wrong? You can argue all you want about whether socio-economic factors are responsible for this level of crime. It doesn't change what the numbers are.

You are missing the point. The numbers do not show what you claim they show.

If communities could self-segregate, they could do more to protect themselves from interracial crime.

Obvious nonsense. Pick up a history book.

You did not have this rate of black-on-white crime 100 years ago.

First, evidence? Second, what did white on black crime look like 100 years ago? Or do you not care?

I made a simple reference to her phrase and judicial activism.

First, it wasn't her phrase. Did you read the article? Second, that phrase, as I mentioned, does not mean what you're claiming it means in that context.

And what judicial activism are you talking about? Kagan has never been a judge.

Jared Taylor on SPLC criticism of the Color of Crime report:

http://vdare.com/taylor/070913_splc.htm

You really think you're going to win points here by citing a White Supremacist?

More importantly, the article you link to doesn't address the points the SPLC article made. The numbers cited in the Color of Crime do not logically support the conclusions that racists are trying to claim they do.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Self-segregation is not treating other communities as second-class citizens.

Being turned away from multiple businesses up and down the land is being treated as a second class citizen.

This is as irrelevant as your hair net example. Do you think people living in communities of their own choosing is comparable to child labor?

No. But that wasn't our argument. You have an objection to a business being forced to do something by the state, but you seemed to allow for regulation when it came to someone being made sick. So why do you think the State can prevent child labour in the work place? After all, nobody gets ill.

What do you think are the benefits of forced integration? And to whom?

Forced integration is a loaded term. Think of it as granting freedom to those who have too little for too long.

 

[Clippy]

Yes, that is one reason it is a failure. It should not be illegal for whites to create living conditions that make them safer from interracial crime. I think blacks running their own society would find ways to create safer conditions for themselves too. At least they would be able to discuss the problem honestly.