Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread

[Siro]

Well, how about 'mocking' which is what Jimmy Eat Jazz said was OK?



Mocking can lead to hatred, anger, discrimination, uprising and potential 'danger' as well, no?

It has to be "clear and present" danger.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

Otherwise nothing would be allowed. Anyone can take any comment to be an invitation to violence. Son of Sam confused his dog's barking for commands to kill people.

Mocking religion is fine. Hurting people's feelings is irrelevant. Under the Constitution that is.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm assuming this is the question you were referring to?

I think society in general should try to avoid belittling/mocking/ridiculing/offending/what ever you want to call it ANY sacred image/item of ANY religion. There is always a little light hearted joking that goes on between friends and stuff. I don't think that is the same thing as openly mocking and belittling.
Yes, we have our right to free speech. But just because you can be a dick doesn't mean you should be a dick.

I CONSIDER YOU ALL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, even if some consider me racist. then im the racist uncle!

 

[DutchJazzer]

I wonder if 'hate speech' is protected under the First Amendment?


Hate speech is defined as: Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

hate speech is anything that goes counter to government!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

Actually what you said was unrelated to free speech, and it shows your usual lack of understanding. I'm sorry I even responded.

Did u see his post saying how Obama was worse than George Bush the other day? Made for a good chuckle

 

[Deleted member 848]

Just curious, do you see is as reasonable for devout Muslims to expect non-Muslims to avoid constructing visual representations of Mohammad?

It's reasonable to assume people respect your religion.

Do non-Muslims have any obligation (whether even out of courtesy) to comply?

Of course not-- but these images often have anti-Muslim agendas.

More generally, where do we draw the line as to what's reasonable to expect (for religious believers) and when is it reasonable to comply (for non-believers)?

A vague question that's impossible to answer without context.

I suppose that if I observed that believers who expect their icons/beliefts, etc. to be held sacred by others extended the same courtesy across the board, I might be more sympathetic. For example, I find the degree of anti-semitism (and holding of unflatering Jewish stereotypes) among my many Muslim friends to be quite appalling.

You will find racism and bigotry in every population sample on this planet. Members of the Jewish faith are a common scapegoat for many Muslims given the sectarianism of Israel/Palestine & the humans rights abuses committed by the Israeli government st times.

This bigotry must be condemned and it generally is across all Islamic organizations here in North America

 

[Darkwing Duck]

How is it not accurate, and how do you define speech?

You can do whatever you want but there are both imposed and natural consequences especially within complex societies. It goes back to the whole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" aspect. Because well sure you can but you can also be arrested for the ensuing chaos.

What is restricted speech? It's saying whatever you want and suffering the consequences of that speech. That's the definition you gave to free speech. The only difference in the two is what the consequences are, and that doesn't change the definition.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Please explain that, because I disagree.

The reason I find it so is irrelevant, but I can assure you it's a common sentiment. The point is that you would not stop that action because you don't find that act offensive, but when it's reversed, and someone is doing something he/she doesn't find offensive and you do, you're angrily railing into the other poster.

 

[Boris]

It has to be "clear and present" danger.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

Otherwise nothing would be allowed. Anyone can take any comment to be an invitation to violence. Son of Sam confused his dog's barking for commands to kill people.

Mocking religion is fine. Hurting people's feelings is irrelevant. Under the Constitution that is.

Says the online bully worried about a lawsuit against him under Utah Administrative Code R277-613. LEA Bullying, Cyber-bullying, Hazing and Harassment Policies and Training.

Here is a link for your defense attorney.

https://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-613.htm

 

[LogGrad98]

What is restricted speech? It's saying whatever you want and suffering the consequences of that speech. That's the definition you gave to free speech. The only difference in the two is what the consequences are, and that doesn't change the definition.

That definition is always part of the debate and the crux of many supreme court cases. I was merely striking at the notion that people think they should be able to say whatever they want, even within legal bounds, with ZERO repercussions at all, and that is just not the way the world works. It transcends law. Just like the global warming debate. We can argue ad nauseum about who causes it, how much we affect it, etc etc but it doesn't change the natural laws that are in motion. I try to teach my kids to think before they speak because regardless of their rights to "take things to court" if they have to to defend what they said there are always repercussions we have little to no control over. I still encourage them to speak out, but to be prepared for what fallout there might be. My daughter went to bat for a gay friend of hers in high school and it affected her reputation, even though her actions were entirely legal. I fully supported her but I cannot go to the supreme court and have each kid forced to accept her views. And it had real consequences. She had been junior class president on the fast track to student body pres, but that whole thing derailed it. She was still in student government her senior year but realistically her speaking out cost her the SB presidency. If that isn't a consequence I don't know what is.

In this thread I never even got into the legality of any given kind of speech. But you cannot argue that once we take an action (say or do something or whatever) we set things in motion, however minor, that we then have little control over. And if we didn't think through the ramifications then it is on us, we need to either have the foresight to see what might happen or the guts and fortitude to weather whatever storm it may create, but there is little we can do to forestall any of the consequences, whether legal or not. To me it speaks to personal responsibility for one's actions. Too many people want to be able to do and say whatever they want and not take responsibility for the outcomes, whether intended or unintended.

At the same time, I guess to round this out, we need to all be fighting for true free speech, to minimize those kinds of consequences. But we also need to take responsibility for our actions and the possible repercussions. Ultimately the only person I can truly change in this world is me.

 

[Boris]

So yah tell me again that hate speech is unconstitutional? Pretty much every state has cyber bullying laws an more.

 

[LogGrad98]

So yah tell me again that hate speech is unconstitutional? Pretty much every state has cyber bullying laws an more.

Bullying is a crime of power, not speech. They might use words but that is not the bully's only tactic. It is more akin to assault then it is hate speech or anything else "constitutional" free speech related. And there needs to be a stronger response to bullying in general. It needs to stop. But I digress.

 

[NAOS]

I can only imagine how many auto-fracts I would have received if my account would have been active while this thread was taking shape.

I'm glad the mod panel is stacked in such a way to protect the sensibilities of Colton's 30%. Heaven forbid a non-Mormon Utahn -- who is enveloped in Mormon-dominated sensibilities everyday -- have a little levity with Mormonism! For shame!!

 

[babe]

Bullying is a crime of power, not speech. They might use words but that is not the bully's only tactic. It is more akin to assault then it is hate speech or anything else "constitutional" free speech related. And there needs to be a stronger response to bullying in general. It needs to stop. But I digress.

Well, another moralist. No room for two on this merry-go-round. You failed to attend to all the politically-correct virtue signaling, or the LDS-standard signaling.

Isn't police law enforcement, and moderator intervention really a form of bullying? State-sanctioned, or site owner bullying. Mind your manners sorta bullying.

Sorry, the ghost of Ambrose Biercw is sitting on my shoulder.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Bullying is a crime of power, not speech. They might use words but that is not the bully's only tactic. It is more akin to assault then it is hate speech or anything else "constitutional" free speech related. And there needs to be a stronger response to bullying in general. It needs to stop. But I digress.

since when ha sbullying become a crime.

I got bullied and bullied.
man the f up grow some **** and handle your bullies