The Limits of Free Speech

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2j5flSKw_GNYeM:http://images.newsfrombabylon.com/articles/09-2005/09-24-2005/104_0421.JPG

What a retarded thread. and what, why the revive?

You see where moderation transparency gets you?

It doesn't read like mark s's usual style of writing.

Interesting

sfgate seems like a good place for that news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/12/ban-pastor-jones-extremists-violence

"What about principle. The right to free speech." We have laws that protect our right to free speech. We also have laws that prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred. Occasionally, a difficult balance has to be struck.

the takeaway: "It's a no-brainer."

"let's have a heated debate"

And I wonder where this debate would be if it was a Muslim cleric planning to come to the UK and start burning Bibles.

actually this might be the hilarious takeaway. yes, what if there were preachers in britain inciting racial and religious hatred, what a crazy parallel world that would be.

Greenwald on the DOJ prosecuting unpopular speech:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/04/speech/index.html

David Frum's "b-b-b-but Lincoln did it" response on twitter is pathetic.

Greenwald has the full weight of the US Constitution and unanimous Supreme Court rulings on his side. On the opposing side there is nothing but fear or subservience to power. Not hard to choose between these two, imo.

greenwald accusing lincoln of 'extremism and lawlessness' on twitter hardly less ridiculous, and hurts his argument. though this was one of the better greenwald posts in a while.

but it was lawless, Blanche.

That riposte was weak even for Frum.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/09/the_vile_anti_muslim_video_and_the_first_amendment_does_the_u_s_overvalue_free_speech_.2.html

Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law.

don't be evil lol

I forget which thread in the last 10 days boasted an argument between a britishes and American concerning "hate speech."

http://www.voanews.com/content/Indonesia-blasphemy-protocol/1514420.html?utm_content=wall-post&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=voice-of-america&utm_medium=facebook

I heard somebody on NPR the other day saying their should be a UN convention on blasphemy. Not sure exactly what he meant, but apparently it is a thing:

http://www.iheu.org/belief-groups-unite-oppose-un-blasphemy-law

Maybe it was this guy: Jeremy Bowen, Middle East editor for the BBC and author of "The Arab Uprisings".

In the wake of the violence sparked by the now infamous video insulting Islam, Bowen thinks an international convention on blasphemy would be an excellent use of the United Nations. But, as he points out, the U.N. has struggled for years to come to an agreement on how to define "terrorism," so such an amorphous term as blasphemy would presumably pose an even greater struggle.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2012/sep/24/united-nations-considers-middle-east-unrest

I forget which thread in the last 10 days boasted an argument between a britishes and American concerning "hate speech."

― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:00 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these are always great

outlawing blasphemy is absurd. every religion is blasphemous to another religion.

it was towards the end of this thread: 7 years of prison for pussy riot?

that was me and that was a month ago

i used a variation of "racial hatred all gone yet?" on a friend recently, so thanks

I saw this transition in yesterday's NYT story on Obama's UN speech:

The president worked to explain — before a sometimes skeptical audience that has never completely bought into the American idea that even hateful speech is protected — why the United States values its First Amendment so highly.

god your newspapers suck

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-police-unions-calling-on-officers-to-boycott-beyonce-concerts/

Thread

thought this would be a revive about metal polls

Did I miss some hi-q ilm action? cmon man you know I rely on youse to give me a nod on that shit.

your free speech ends where my penis enlarger begins

Hi contends btw

hallo, dags!

dagby?

in Beyonce's video there is non-violence even the word meme HANDS UP DONT SHOOT is non-violent yet here we have a state power structure suppressing it by falsely portraying Beyonce as an agent of violence essentially making some viral form of pro-status quo state propaganda. as individual the police unions can say whatever they want but as public service members, as people that walk around with guns and the power to lock you away from your family, they have a responsibility to not act like idiots and make things less safe by saying things like this. for me the limits of free speech is when you are making things dangerous for others.

Beyonce is not showing anything violent these days we have murders on afternoon daytime TV news bumpers. Beyonce is performing. these people are just idiots that don't get art. the problem is they can legally shoot someone and get away with it.

ho-leee fuc-king shit

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/23/university-of-california-adopts-policy-linking-anti-zionism-to-anti-semitism/

Thread

hmm, i wonder why pos morbz types would be upset about a non-binding, non-legal, resolution that condemns, among many other forms of prejudice, “anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism.” surely there's nothing to get up in arms about unless... no, but it couldn't be. i wonder if it's bc they're upset that ppl are catching on? holy shit you fucking cumrag you're just angry that ppl realized human garbage just swap out the word jewish for zionism so they can get away with it! xp

Oved said the policy was necessary to defend pro-Israel students who have been subjected to abusive language, like being called “Zionist pigs,” or told that “Zionists should be sent back to the gas chambers.”

nooooo they just meant zionists should go back to the gas chambers, not jews

ah "morbz types"... fuck off

No doubt, even the revised statement will outrage anti-Zionist activists on campus. They will argue that the statement of principles chills their own free speech and right to protest. But the statement is very clear that even all speech, including prejudiced speech, is to be protected. Mostly, one suspects that activist groups like SJP and JVP and their on-campus advocates will object because of the strong statement against actions on campus that violate by shutting down the free speech of others.

wahhh we can't keep speakers from speaking. stop restricting /my/ free speech!

This actually seems like the system working to me. Listing "anti-Zionism" as a form of intolerance doesn't work because anti-Zionism is a political position and there are lots of anti-Zionists who aren't motivated by anti-Semitism. People pointed this out to the regents, so they changed it to "anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism." Which seems as good as possible a way of endorsing the position that "There should be a binational state in which Jews don't have special privileges" is OK but search-and-replace stuff like "Zionist pigs back to the gas chamber" is not. Judith Butler is right that this leaves space for lots of arguments about which anti-Zionist expressions are materially anti-Semitic, but I don't think you're going to be able to make a statement of principles that precisely answers all questions.

That article seems so deliberately point-missing.

i honestly am not sure what the point of the UC policy is -- like, what effects do they think it will or should have?

i mean i'm not sure what the UC leadership felt like this was something they had to address as an official policy (which seems toothless, i.e. mostly symbolic)

and yes that intercept article seems to be /straining/ to miss the point. or at least one of the points. just another example of people talking past one another. like, there are plenty of jews (plenty of israelis!) who acknowledge that israel has done horrible things that people are legitimately angry about. but that doesn't excuse the anti-semitic tinge that colors some (not most! but some!) of the resulting criticism (indeed, some of that criticism seems to take the israel-palestine conflict as a pretext for expressing anti-semitic tropes that pre-date the foundation of israel).

that said, i still think that UC making an official policy about this is (1) pointless (2) more likely to make this worse than better.

i mean, this stuff isn't hard! or shouldn't be! if you apply it to almost any other place on earth, smart people seem to be disentangle political criticism from racist speech.

yes, it's sad that you need to make a disclaimer like "yes, not all anti-zionism is anti-semitic" before you can call out antisemitism. it's as if every time someone on the left wanted to call out racism they were forced to add "yes, not all critiques of the [?] community are racist." but when it comes to antisemitism you must make that distinction over and over or else ppl listening - even supposedly bright ppl who write for the intercept - will get hung up on "oh you're just using the anti-semitism card." when someone makes a "this is antisemitic" claim, we should be able to look at the specific situation and discuss whether it is or isn't but for some reason (some reason i just don't know what) you end up arguing about whether arabs are also semites and if jews use antisemitism as a way to protect israel and not the particular claim at all. if you read the comments on that intercept article you see right there in the open ppl explicitly trying to implicate jews as a group as a stand in for israel's crimes. in fact i'd suggest that's the very logic of the "you're using the claim of antisemitism to deflect from legitimate criticisms of israel" argument - to make jews complaining of bigotry complicit in whatever crimes of the israeli govt. it's not simply that UC jewish students want to walk down the hallway without having "zio-pig" yelled at them, it's that they want to whitewash israeli crimes and all of us in the diaspora are complicit. it's so perverse - another common argument i hear from these ppl (and is present under that article) is "well it can't be antisemitism because the good jews also criticize israel." putting aside the fact that the vast, vast majority of jews believe in the perpetuation of the jewish state - the term "good jews" is so laden w/ hate it makes me feel ill to read, and it totally ignores the idea of internalizing hate. can you imagine if someone said "well it can't be bigotry bc [member of discriminated against group] also agrees" and expected that to land as an argument anywhere outside the republican party?