Why banning hate speech is counterproductve

evince said:
When the news says something that is a LIE they should get fined and have to wear a fucking scarlet letter.

There should be special designation to be able to wear the NEWS label.

If you misrepresent the facts then you should be fined and or lose the ability to label yourself news.

You can go on an LIE all you want but you CAN NOT carry the news label.

That way no ones free speach is harmed but the people say "Oh that is not News!"
Click to expand...

who gets to monitor these NEWS agencies to determine what truth is? government? LOL
 
Watermark said:
Honestly, re instituting the fairness doctrine would do little else besides bring a huge windfall to the right in America. There is nothing they should wish for more if they ever intend to get back in power.

That besides it just being a gross infringement on free speech.

The Party for Freedom was irrelevant politically before they decided to bring hate speech charges against him, and now he may be their next prime minister. Banning hate speech makes it more powerful. It is an infringement on liberal values and is counterproductive to progressive values.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree and banning hate speech is no more regressive than any other law which enforces civil society.

How would conversations on this board benefit by allowing all manner of hate speech?

It wouldn't, and in fact would be counterproductive to real conversation.

Banning hate speech doesn't make it any less idiotic and it doesn't make it more powerful.

I guarantee there is more to even this singular case than meets the eye.
 
blackascoal said:
I completely disagree and banning hate speech is no more regressive than any other law which enforces civil society.

How would conversations on this board benefit by allowing all manner of hate speech?

It wouldn't, and in fact would be counterproductive to real conversation.

Banning hate speech doesn't make it any less idiotic and it doesn't make it more powerful.

I guarantee there is more to even this singular case than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

Ideological totalitarianism is always regressive, bac.
 
blackascoal said:
I completely disagree and banning hate speech is no more regressive than any other law which enforces civil society.
Click to expand...
I almost started a tirade about what laws were meant to do, but then remembered that you are a dedicated socialist and nothing would be gained by trying to tell you what laws were actually for.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ideological totalitarianism is always regressive, bac.
Click to expand...

Civility in society is never regressive .. and it is in fact ideological totalitarianism to believe that one can do whatever one wishes in the name of "freedom."

Even in freedom, there are rules.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
I almost started a tirade about what laws were meant to do, but then remembered that you are a dedicated socialist and nothing would be gained by trying to tell you what laws were actually for.
Click to expand...

Laws are meant to govern behavior.

Can't get anymore simplistic and to the point than that.

Humans require laws that govern behavior in order to form civil societies.

Where do you draw the line .. knowing that lines must be drawn?

Should anyone be allowed to walk naked in public because they choose to and see it as a form of freedom?

Is sex in public freedom?

Can I knowingly and publicly spread lies and distortions about you, your company, or organization to gain advantage?

I'm a long ass way from a "law and order" advocate, but surely everyone recognizes the purpose and NEED for laws.
 
You people are so fucked up you dont care that Fox News won a court case because they proved news does not Have to tell the truth.

I think the American people would like their NEWS to be true.

Being allowed to be called news should have a level of proof to it.

You cant knowingly lie.

Fox KNOWINGLY lied and the people suing them PROVED IT, they lost the case because Fox Proved News doesnt have to tell the truth.

Fuck that , I say they should have lost the damn case.
 
evince said:
You people are so fucked up you dont care that Fox News won a court case because they proved news does not Have to tell the truth.

I think the American people would like their NEWS to be true.

Being allowed to be called news should have a level of proof to it.

You cant knowingly lie.

Fox KNOWINGLY lied and the people suing them PROVED IT, they lost the case because Fox Proved News doesnt have to tell the truth.

Fuck that , I say they should have lost the damn case.
Click to expand...

I guess CBS and Dan Rather follow the same blueprint.
 
evince said:
You people are so fucked up you dont care that Fox News won a court case because they proved news does not Have to tell the truth.

I think the American people would like their NEWS to be true.

Being allowed to be called news should have a level of proof to it.

You cant knowingly lie.

Fox KNOWINGLY lied and the people suing them PROVED IT, they lost the case because Fox Proved News doesnt have to tell the truth.

Fuck that , I say they should have lost the damn case.
Click to expand...
Desh. Anyone who believes the news is a goner anyway. Study it so you understand the lies.
 
The news should and can be based on truth.

Anyone who thinks it is impossible is dumb as a post.
 
evince said:
The news should and can be based on truth.

Anyone who thinks it is impossible is dumb as a post.
Click to expand...

Again, it's a case of "who's truth do you mean?". Grow up. Learn to think for yourself, instead of seeking an authority figure to tell you what's real.
 
Wasn't it once said that history was written by the victors, you never get to hear the "other" side of the story.
 
My plan to make that happen is to let everyone say what they wish. The truth will prevail because it is more logical. If the government tries to clamp down on "lies", it will inevitably clamp down on truth as well.

And also Desh, banning bad newsmedia is simply counterproductive to spreading the truth anyway. They would get massive popular windfall, and they would come into power and revoke any regulations you pass anyway. You know this as well as I. It's not good for the interests of freedom, and if you disregard that, it's just not a good practical idea either. We have to prove that we're above that, we have to prove that we speak the truth and don't require government force to back that claim up.
 
Watermark said:
My plan to make that happen is to let everyone say what they wish. The truth will prevail because it is more logical. If the government tries to clamp down on "lies", it will inevitably clamp down on truth as well.

And also Desh, banning bad newsmedia is simply counterproductive to spreading the truth anyway. They would get massive popular windfall, and they would come into power and revoke any regulations you pass anyway. You know this as well as I. It's not good for the interests of freedom, and if you disregard that, it's just not a good practical idea either. We have to prove that we're above that, we have to prove that we speak the truth and don't require government force to back that claim up.
Click to expand...

:thup: Awesome!
 
We are not going to ban shit here if we don't ban fox.
That said, the left tools. Most of them not as left as me are comical in their worship of Kieth the assclown Olberman.
MSNBC is more comedy than news, and their junior high ripping of the Bush clan is embarrassing. Quit kicking sand in republicans faces for folling this fool. This ship is sinking if you haven't looked captain Air America.
 
Watermark said:
My plan to make that happen is to let everyone say what they wish. The truth will prevail because it is more logical. If the government tries to clamp down on "lies", it will inevitably clamp down on truth as well.

And also Desh, banning bad newsmedia is simply counterproductive to spreading the truth anyway. They would get massive popular windfall, and they would come into power and revoke any regulations you pass anyway. You know this as well as I. It's not good for the interests of freedom, and if you disregard that, it's just not a good practical idea either. We have to prove that we're above that, we have to prove that we speak the truth and don't require government force to back that claim up.
Click to expand...

Get real brother.

We're talking about Americans and logic doesn't have shit to do with it.

"Mushroom clouds in America is 45 minutes."

How much "logic" is there to that bullshit?

Shouldn't a moron have been able to figure out the deception of that in about 5 seconds? Now, countless people are dead and America's reputation, status, influence, and power have been destroyed because the morons in this country who swallow anything they're told couldn't figure out this or any of the oyther lies that pass as "news" on Iraq.

I agree with Desh.

How in the hell can anyone defend a lie as news?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top