Why banning hate speech is counterproductve

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Wilders party (against) Freedom now leads in the Netherlands with a platform that calls for banning preaching in languages other than Dutch, prohibiting Muslim immigration, and banning people from building new mosques. This guy is a right-fascist 100% who wants to make the Netherlands into a mini-America.

Recognizing ignorant and fascist views by banning them only lends credance to them. This is like what the moderate liberals said when Bismark passed the anti-socialist laws: "I fear Social-Democracy more under this law than without it"


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32915/party_for_freedom_leads_in_the_netherlands

Party for Freedom Leads in the Netherlands
March 03, 2009

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - For the first time ever, the right-wing Party for Freedom (PvdV) is the most popular political organization in the Netherlands, according to a poll by Maurice de Hond. A prospective tally of seats shows the PvdV would win 27 seats in the next legislative election, up four in two weeks.

The ruling Christian-Democratic Appeal (CDA) is second with 26 seats, followed by the Labour Party (PvdA) with 21, Democrats 66 with 19, the Socialist Party (SP) with 18, and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) with 17. Support is lower for the Green Left (GL), the Christian Union (CU), Proud of the Netherlands (ToN), the Party for the Animals (PvdD), and the Reformed Political Party (SGP).

Dutch voters renewed the Second Chamber in November 2006. The CDA—led by current minister president Jan Peter Balkenende—secured 41 out of 150 seats. In February 2007, a coalition encompassing the CDA, the PvdA of Wouter Bos, and the CU of Andre Rouvouet was assembled.

The PvdV has recently gained notoriety thanks to its controversial leader Geert Wilders. Last year, Wilders released a movie titled Fitna depicting Islam as a violent religion, and comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf". In January 2009, an Amsterdam court ordered prosecutors to call Wilders to trial for inciting hatred. Wilders has called the decision an "attack on public debate."

Last month, Wilders visited the U.S. and discussed his views on censorship, saying, "In the Netherlands, the elite consider that you may not speak as I do, but here freedom is in the genes. (...) I notice that in this country, at least arguments are exchanged. The Netherlands and Europe could adopt this as an example."
 
If you are indeed opposed to banning/controlling speech, how pray tell do you justify that horrendous gang rape of the Constitution known as the "fairness doctrine"? If I am not mistaken, you have supported its reinstatement in the past. You cannot have it both ways Watermark. Either you believe in freedom, or you do not. Which is it?
 
Tabasco said:
If you are indeed opposed to banning/controlling speech, how pray tell do you justify that horrendous gang rape of the Constitution known as the "fairness doctrine"? If I am not mistaken, you have supported its reinstatement in the past. You cannot have it both ways Watermark. Either you believe in freedom, or you do not. Which is it?
Click to expand...

What? Have I?

I believe the fairness doctrine is almost as irrelevant as right-wing radio, which is quite a feat indeed.
 
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.
 
Tabasco said:
If you are indeed opposed to banning/controlling speech, how pray tell do you justify that horrendous gang rape of the Constitution known as the "fairness doctrine"? If I am not mistaken, you have supported its reinstatement in the past. You cannot have it both ways Watermark. Either you believe in freedom, or you do not. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Well...you're certainly entitled to your opinion...but SCOTUS disagrees with you on that.

Water's right though. The Fairness Doctrine is a throwback to the days of limited frequencies on public airwaves. Now you have a zillion frequencies of media outlets via, cable, satellite, internet, fiberoptics, broadband, yadda, yadda, yadda, where it doesn't apply as you're not dealing with the public airwaves. The only thing The Fairness Doctrine is good for is giving conservatives apoplexy who listen to AM right wing talk radio. It's irrelevant.
 
Mottleydude said:
Well...you're certainly entitled to your opinion...but SCOTUS disagrees with you on that.

Water's right though. The Fairness Doctrine is a throwback to the days of limited frequencies on public airwaves. Now you have a zillion frequencies of media outlets via, cable, satellite, internet, fiberoptics, broadband, yadda, yadda, yadda, where it doesn't apply as you're not dealing with the public airwaves. The only thing The Fairness Doctrine is good for is giving conservatives apoplexy who listen to AM right wing talk radio. It's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't think the SCOTUS would rule the same way on the fairness doctrine as it did back in the 60's, even if there were a liberal majority. There are just tons of stations and mediums to get information from.

Although I had argued for the Fairness doctrine like six months ago or something, I was deep within a tangent of extremism that I sometimes get in (I was failing to apply critical thinking to my political philosophy, and if any of you remember, I was literally calling for a ban on handguns at the time, something I almost convinced myself of), and I had a serious belief that right wing radio lead people to delusion. Well, I still hold that belief, but I don't think it should be stripped from the airwaves at all, for philosophical and practical reasons.
 
Watermark said:
I don't think the SCOTUS would rule the same way on the fairness doctrine as it did back in the 60's, even if there were a liberal majority. There are just tons of stations and mediums to get information from.
Click to expand...

I agree. Keep in mind that a lot of right wingers confuse "The Fairness Doctrine" with "The Equal Time" doctrine. They are not the same. The Fairness Doctrine was intended solely as a public service regulation for broadcast media at a time of very limited broadcast frequencies. It was intended to insure public discourse on important public issues that presented both or the several sides of the issue. As media outlets increased is was determined it actually had the opposite affect. Broadcasters preferred not to cover public intrest/service issues as it was difficult for them to gauge if they would meet the requirements of the doctrine. So thus it was allowed to die

Although I had argued for the Fairness doctrine like six months ago or something, I was deep within a tangent of extremism that I sometimes get in (I was failing to apply critical thinking to my political philosophy, and if any of you remember, I was literally calling for a ban on handguns at the time, something I almost convinced myself of), and I had a serious belief that right wing radio lead people to delusion. Well, I still hold that belief, but I don't think it should be stripped from the airwaves at all, for philosophical and practical reasons.
Click to expand...

Right wing radio will eventually discredit itself under the Lincoln principle (You can't fool all the people all the time). Keep in mind that it's a niche audience of mostly older listeners (thus it's popularity on AM radio). Outside of it's niche audience it is very unpopular. There are many more people who dislike it than are fans of it. It's really a self defeating proposition. I can see where a Democratic majority would think about something like manipulating the Fairness Doctrine for short term political gain. But in the long term they don't need to. The evidence is clear that repulbicans are alienating the younger generations with their shrill, partisan and often hateful propaganda. The Republican party sold it's soul to the right wing partisans to barely win a couple of elections but now they are going to pay the price for it. If you think about it. Right wing talk radio and Fox News are two of the best friends that Dems have in the long run. All's Dems have to do is keep their mouths shut, make a few occassional snide comments about the wackos on the right and let these right wing talking head extremist continue to discredit the Republican party.

If the Republicans were smart they would begin the painful process of distancing themselves from these right wing extremist. There current position isn't tenable for forming a ruling coalition.
 
Except in the meantime we got the worst possible government becuase of the abuses of a corporate media.

When someone manages to control the internet we will be raped like this again.

What do you think would keep the media safe from the monied interests before we manage to wrestle it back again from the brink?
 
evince said:
Except in the meantime we got the worst possible government becuase of the abuses of a corporate media.

When someone manages to control the internet we will be raped like this again.

What do you think would keep the media safe from the monied interests before we manage to wrestle it back again from the brink?
Click to expand...

Well you ask a very good question. I don't have an answer but I don't think tossing the first amendment out the window would be the answer.

Probably the best protection is sound public eductaion and the resulting informed public. As I said, the Lincoln principle applies in the case of propaganda and it's agenda. You can't fool all the people all the time.
 
evince said:
I say the news has to tell the truth. Why cant we make laws that cover that?
Click to expand...
Because TRUTH is highly debateable. For instance, it's true that discrimination against white males goes on daily, and that you approve of it, but because you're a brainwashed cretin who can't even understand her own beliefs, you would deny it all day long, though it is most certainly true.
 
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!"
 
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...

No. The proper approach is to teach all individuals to be skeptical, confirm things for themselves, and be wary of possible agendas of the speaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top