"I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech?"
Uh, neither? I don't have a problem with hate speech.
Slander/libel is not a crime per se, it is a tort and the remedy is a civil suit. I support that.
I support exceptions for obscenity. Obscenity when referred to in this context generally means that you can't use a 'free speech' defense for illegal pornography (like child porn), sexual harrassment at work, etc. It doesn't mean making a simple lewd comment.
I support the right to enter into contracts limiting your 'free speech'. Examples... employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. And if you break the contract, it's completely fair for the injured party to penalize you as allowed in the contract.
Since the OP finally gave a source, now we know this happened in South Africa. Apparently hate speech is a crime there. Since what she did was against the law, fining her was 'fair' in the sense that it is the legal consequence for what she did. Is the law itself fair? From my American perspective, I'd say no. But I don't know much at all about South Africa...it's entirely possible that there is sound reason behind the law as racism is a huge problem there. I just don't know enough about it to say.
I just mentioned inciting violence because it was the only exception I could think of that seemed like it could possibly apply in this case. I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop.
But my feeling is also that the law is unfair in this case. In fact I'd go further, I don't think there is ever a sound reason for a law that results in an outcome like this, even in a place as complicated as SA. Just an opinion.
I don't think there should be criminal sanctions for verbal speech.
I'm confused by what your point is tbh. But I'll try - you've given some *superb* examples where FOS is not protected.
None of them provide criminal restrictions on verbal speech though (ex eobscenity?). And even if they did - I just happen not to agree with laws like that.
So, just to make sure I was clear enough with the two statements above,
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop" - aka Yes, in reality there are exceptions to the right to FOS, where it's not protected. I hinted that I disagree with most of these. But in reality/practice, yes these certainly exist as you pointed out.
"But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form" - I guess I've explained above. This is *my opinion* - it's not a description of the actual reality, just to be crystal.
So, those two statements don't negate or disagree with each other. One is describing reality. One is a general ideal.
They can be the complete opposite. Seeing as I'm not responsible for reality, it wouldn't be hypocritical of me to hold that ideal of the second statement.
By outlawed in any form, does that mean, for instance, that you don't think people injured by slander should have any recourse whatsoever? I can agree that slander shouldn't be an arrestable offense but I disagree that the injured party should have no way to recoup damages.
is it fair or not?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech?"
Uh, neither? I don't have a problem with hate speech.
Slander/libel is not a crime per se, it is a tort and the remedy is a civil suit. I support that.
I support exceptions for obscenity. Obscenity when referred to in this context generally means that you can't use a 'free speech' defense for illegal pornography (like child porn), sexual harrassment at work, etc. It doesn't mean making a simple lewd comment.
I support the right to enter into contracts limiting your 'free speech'. Examples... employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. And if you break the contract, it's completely fair for the injured party to penalize you as allowed in the contract.
Since the OP finally gave a source, now we know this happened in South Africa. Apparently hate speech is a crime there. Since what she did was against the law, fining her was 'fair' in the sense that it is the legal consequence for what she did. Is the law itself fair? From my American perspective, I'd say no. But I don't know much at all about South Africa...it's entirely possible that there is sound reason behind the law as racism is a huge problem there. I just don't know enough about it to say.
--
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah ok, I jumped the gun there, I'm sorry.
I just mentioned inciting violence because it was the only exception I could think of that seemed like it could possibly apply in this case. I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop.
But my feeling is also that the law is unfair in this case. In fact I'd go further, I don't think there is ever a sound reason for a law that results in an outcome like this, even in a place as complicated as SA. Just an opinion.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop."
Uh, no. You also said "But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form"
--
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's because I don't think it should.
I don't think there should be criminal sanctions for verbal speech.
I'm confused by what your point is tbh. But I'll try - you've given some *superb* examples where FOS is not protected.
None of them provide criminal restrictions on verbal speech though (ex eobscenity?). And even if they did - I just happen not to agree with laws like that.
So, just to make sure I was clear enough with the two statements above,
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop" - aka Yes, in reality there are exceptions to the right to FOS, where it's not protected. I hinted that I disagree with most of these. But in reality/practice, yes these certainly exist as you pointed out.
"But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form" - I guess I've explained above. This is *my opinion* - it's not a description of the actual reality, just to be crystal.
So, those two statements don't negate or disagree with each other. One is describing reality. One is a general ideal.
They can be the complete opposite. Seeing as I'm not responsible for reality, it wouldn't be hypocritical of me to hold that ideal of the second statement.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
By outlawed in any form, does that mean, for instance, that you don't think people injured by slander should have any recourse whatsoever? I can agree that slander shouldn't be an arrestable offense but I disagree that the injured party should have no way to recoup damages.