Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 218

Thread: They sure are worried about her...

  1. #31
    Can we agree that no one cared about this law (passed in 2000) until it was used against a fascist?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This depicted an innocent person's murder. Was permission obtained from the victim beforehand?
    That's pretty difficult to acquire considering the the terrorists killed them.

  3. #33
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Can we also agree that we can discuss if this seems a bit stringent and close to censorship with out being dicks?
    No, this is not close to censorship. Unless we agree that showing snuff films in public is okay. Are you okay with that?

    There is a limit to everything. The Free Speech Morons usually forget about that. Everything has a consequence - Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable. Well, here's the thing: It does not work that way. You say something and someone else will react to that. And sometimes we as a society decide that this reaction is not something we want.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can we agree that no one cared about this law (passed in 2000) until it was used against a fascist?
    No. But we might be able to agree that with maybe one or two exceptions who never saw fit to mention it, no one on this board knew about this law before now, or has ever seen it reported on.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    No, this is not close to censorship. Unless we agree that showing snuff films in public is okay. Are you okay with that?

    There is a limit to everything. The Free Speech Morons usually forget about that.
    No, we really don't. We just put our limit well beyond where you would. We think "it directly leads to harm" to be the reasonable limit. You think "it's about something I dislike or can be used to take whacks at someone I don't like, to be that limit.

    Everything has a consequence - Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable. Well, here's the thing: It does not work that way. You say something and someone else will react to that. And sometimes we as a society decide that this reaction is not something we want.
    EVERYTHING causes a reaction. In fact, literally everything causes a negative reaction. That's not a good enough standard because none of us wants to ban everything. If you're targeting negative reactions, you need to determine how proximate, how predictable, and how severe the negative reaction is. In your case, the answer is "not proximate in the least," it looks to be at least third-order reactions and maybe fourth-order reactions. And your "predictable" bit is totally subjective on who you think is going to be prosecuted in a particular instance.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No, we really don't. We just put our limit well beyond where you would. We think "it directly leads to harm" to be the reasonable limit. You think "it's about something I dislike or can be used to take whacks at someone I don't like, to be that limit.

    EVERYTHING causes a reaction. In fact, literally everything causes a negative reaction. That's not a good enough standard because none of us wants to ban everything. If you're targeting negative reactions, you need to determine how proximate, how predictable, and how severe the negative reaction is. In your case, the answer is "not proximate in the least," it looks to be at least third-order reactions and maybe fourth-order reactions. And your "predictable" bit is totally subjective on who you think is going to be prosecuted in a particular instance.
    Snore. Aren't you over this recent habit of strawmanning, misinterpreting and mis-attributing views yet? How long do you intend to carry on? In one thread after another you've been slinging snark at your fantasies and the views you imagine people hold rather than engaging in the kind of thoughtful discussion and debate that was once your signum. It's getting tiresome. No-one on this forum sincerely believes that freedom of speech should only encompass the things they like. Not a single person. Stop this nonsense.
    Last edited by Aimless; 03-05-2017 at 06:01 PM.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Minus the part where sharing this kind of a video is illegal in France, and it's illegal for Lewkosian "fear the Muslims" reasons. And suddenly Le Pen and Lewk are outraged when the law is applied to a non-Muslim. As for Le Pen caring about free speech: when did you become an avid RT viewer?
    This is not entirely accurate. The provision in question can be found here:

    https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/conte...le/Code_33.pdf

    ARTICLE 227-24 (Ordinance no. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 in force 1 January 2002)

    The manufacture, transport, distribution by whatever means and however supported, of a message bearing a pornographic or violent character or a character seriously violating human dignity, or the trafficking in such a message, is punished by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000, where the message may be seen or perceived by a
    minor.

    Where the offences under the present article are committed through the press or by broadcasting, the specific legal provisions governing those matters are applicable to define the persons who are responsible.
    The decision and their reasoning can be found here:

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...ML&language=EN

    You obviously can't persuasively argue that Le Pen was deliberately inciting jihadist violence. It may be possible to argue that these images have the unintended effect of encouraging extremists to take the final step into outright terrorism (one reason why French news sources have of late been reluctant to publish images of terrorists) but that's not a matter for the law to decide. The argument being made is that the dissemination of these images violates human dignity according to the standards of the French criminal code.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  8. #38
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    No, this is not close to censorship. Unless we agree that showing snuff films in public is okay. Are you okay with that?

    There is a limit to everything. The Free Speech Morons usually forget about that. Everything has a consequence - Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable. Well, here's the thing: It does not work that way. You say something and someone else will react to that. And sometimes we as a society decide that this reaction is not something we want.
    So the answer is no then, let's be dicks.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  9. #39
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    So the answer is no then, let's be dicks.
    Listen, the tired old "Freedom Of Speech Wharrgarble!"-argument is pretty much the end of any discussion. As soon as someone trots it out you know that there's no rational thought left - because that argument is part of a creed and, like any system of belief, impervious to logical arguments.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is not entirely accurate. The provision in question can be found here:

    https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/conte...le/Code_33.pdf
    The law was passed in response to the publishing of images of victims of Algerian terrorists.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No. But we might be able to agree that with maybe one or two exceptions who never saw fit to mention it, no one on this board knew about this law before now, or has ever seen it reported on.
    It was directed more at the Europeans who brought this issue to everyone's attention.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Listen, the tired old "Freedom Of Speech Wharrgarble!"-argument is pretty much the end of any discussion. As soon as someone trots it out you know that there's no rational thought left - because that argument is part of a creed and, like any system of belief, impervious to logical arguments.
    It is always the big government proponents that are the first to attack the idea of freedom of speech. They are always deeply afraid of the people themselves since they think they are stupid and most be governed by the 'elites.' Raw speech is too dangerous a weapon to have over the simple and must be curtailed by those who can handle it. Isn't that right Kenny?

  12. #42
    Hey, remember when you were calling everyone who knew what the fuck they were talking about an 'elitist' back during the Bush era, on Atari?

    That line really has not aged well.
    Last edited by Steely Glint; 03-05-2017 at 10:54 PM.
    I'll lend you my essence for your rusted throne, and you could bring back the light to the last home of civilisation without which I'm gone
    So take this godsoul to bring forth a new dawn, I'll forgive the death you've earned, the cities you've burned, the lessons we've learned
    For all that remains, just sacrifice me. I'll hide away in a castle on the sea.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Snore. Aren't you over this recent habit of strawmanning, misinterpreting and mis-attributing views yet? How long do you intend to carry on? In one thread after another you've been slinging snark at your fantasies and the views you imagine people hold rather than engaging in the kind of thoughtful discussion and debate that was once your signum. It's getting tiresome. No-one on this forum sincerely believes that freedom of speech should only encompass the things they like. Not a single person. Stop this nonsense.
    I sincerely believe that for some of our more obnoxious members, particularly Lewk and Khend, that in actual practice they really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech. I do not think Khend is capable in practice of seeing validity in Voltaire's famous sentiment.

    But hey, if you feel this is strawmanning and something that bores you, maybe you should grow a fucking pair and challenge the straw-men Khend throws out which prompt them first. Apparently I'm offending you but you just gloss over Khend saying Rand approves of "kill the Jews," "fire in a crowded theater" or that ALL of us "Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable"
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I sincerely believe that for some of our more obnoxious members, particularly Lewk and Khend, that in actual practice they really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech. I do not think Khend is capable in practice of seeing validity in Voltaire's famous sentiment.
    The fuck? When have I ever been anti-free speech? I've been one of the most consistent member's on this board when it comes to the 1st amendment. (Unlike most of the liberal wing here and their desire to limit political speech).

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The fuck? When have I ever been anti-free speech? I've been one of the most consistent member's on this board when it comes to the 1st amendment. (Unlike most of the liberal wing here and their desire to limit political speech).
    Except you have all kinds of distortions about what you're willing to concede falls under the 1st amendment, which is the point.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Except you have all kinds of distortions about what you're willing to concede falls under the 1st amendment, which is the point.
    Like?

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Like?
    You've called for criminally charging people who made accusations when a prosecutor didn't manage to secure a conviction. And just this week you've insisted there is no right to assembly if it discommodes others.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    You've called for criminally charging people who made accusations when a prosecutor didn't manage to secure a conviction. And just this week you've insisted there is no right to assembly if it discommodes others.
    No I've stated that people who make false reports should be prosecuted. IE the Duke Lacross case. Do you really think the prosecutor should have passed on the the girl who cried wolf when it was clear she was lying through her teeth?

    Assembly is absolutely a right however your freedom to assembly does not give you the right to bar other people from travel. You can peacefully assemble just don't block traffic, don't block business entrances and don't block the ability to go about their lives. I don't actually believe you think otherwise.

    A general rule of thumb is if you are OK *from your preferred view of what should or shouldn't be legal* with a protest (say pipeline, say oil company, say federal government) you MUST be OK with that SAME protest being carried out against public schools while class is in session and your family members. IE if it is OK to block a work crew from getting to work it must also be OK with people blocking your family member from getting to work. IE if it is OK to prevent free travel down a road, it is OK to prevent free travel of a school bus down a road. If you are not OK with that sort of thing than you can't be OK with the former and have any belief in law and order - you would be like the liberal wannabe-fascists on college campus that believe one rule for thee and one rule for thee.

  19. #49
    I love how you managed to call for an end to "inconvenient" protests and call someone else a fascist in the same paragraph.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I love how you managed to call for an end to "inconvenient" protests and call someone else a fascist in the same paragraph.
    Yup. Because I don't believe in anarchy. Protest is absolutely fine. Blocking traffic is not. Preventing someone from walking down the road is not. Preventing someone from entering their place of business is not. Protest is legal, however all other laws still need to be complied with. You can't just go run up and commit a murder (or any other criminal act) simply because you decide to call it a protest.

    This isn't rocket science.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Yup. Because I don't believe in anarchy. Protest is absolutely fine. Blocking traffic is not. Preventing someone from walking down the road is not. Preventing someone from entering their place of business is not. Protest is legal, however all other laws still need to be complied with. You can't just go run up and murder (or any other criminal act) simply because you decide to call it a protest.

    This isn't rocket science.
    Do you know what brought about change in the Civil Rights movement? Arab Spring? Ukraine? Inconvenient protests. For someone who thinks we should have guns to ward off a tyrannical government, it's rather odd that you'd remove the far better (and less violent) alternative.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Do you know what brought about change in the Civil Rights movement? Arab Spring? Ukraine? Inconvenient protests. For someone who thinks we should have guns to ward off a tyrannical government, it's rather odd that you'd remove the far better (and less violent) alternative.
    So if I call it a protest I can go rob a store? Kidnap people? Prevent ambulances from getting to hospitals?

    I'm legit asking you straight up. Do you believe the 1st amendment gives you the right to break other laws like the ones I've just outlined? This isn't a question on "well how should society handle.." this is a straight up legal question.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    No I've stated that people who make false reports should be prosecuted.
    And you've declared the foremost standard for what constitutes a false report is whether it leads to a conviction or not.

    IE the Duke Lacross case. Do you really think the prosecutor should have passed on the the girl who cried wolf when it was clear she was lying through her teeth?
    You didn't want to just go after that girl, you wanted to go after everyone who couldn't prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Assembly is absolutely a right however your freedom to assembly does not give you the right to bar other people from travel.
    You know, only one of those things is guaranteed by the Constitution. And it's not travel.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Can we agree that no one cared about this law (passed in 2000) until it was used against a fascist?
    In specific I didn't know about this law or ever see it get exercised so I didn't care about it specifically since it was unknown.
    In general I do and always have cared about the law.

    As for who the law was used against its irrelevant. Laws are meaningless if only liberals you agree with get rights and fascists you oppose don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So if I call it a protest I can go rob a store? Kidnap people? Prevent ambulances from getting to hospitals?

    I'm legit asking you straight up. Do you believe the 1st amendment gives you the right to break other laws like the ones I've just outlined? This isn't a question on "well how should society handle.." this is a straight up legal question.
    Reasonable accommodations should be made for people exercising their first amendment. They don't need to loot or kidnap to utilize it.

    Do you think the Civil Rights Movement was wrong to use protests that blocked traffic?
    Last edited by Loki; 03-06-2017 at 08:25 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Reasonable accommodations should be made for people exercising their first amendment. They don't need to loot to kidnap to utilize it.

    Do you think the Civil Rights Movement was wrong to use protests that blocked traffic?
    If the protesters block the entrance to a hospital, and an individual is unable to receive life saving medical attention because of it, should the protesters be held accountable?

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If the protesters block the entrance to a hospital, and an individual is unable to receive life saving medical attention because of it, should the protesters be held accountable?
    That seems like a crime very different to "blocking roads." Pretty sure people do occasionally die as a consequence of non-violent resistance. The question is are we willing to tolerate that as a society to preserve our freedoms? After all, you guys are quite willing to tolerate the annual murder of thousands with guns for the same reason.

    Also odd that a libertarian would be looking for ways to strengthen the government's hand at the expense of those trying to challenge said government.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    A general rule of thumb is if you are OK *from your preferred view of what should or shouldn't be legal* with a protest (say pipeline, say oil company, say federal government) you MUST be OK with that SAME protest being carried out against public schools while class is in session and your family members. IE if it is OK to block a work crew from getting to work it must also be OK with people blocking your family member from getting to work. IE if it is OK to prevent free travel down a road, it is OK to prevent free travel of a school bus down a road. If you are not OK with that sort of thing than you can't be OK with the former and have any belief in law and order
    This is absolute nonsense. It makes about as much saying that a person who thinks murder should be illegal must also think that war should be illegal or that drugs should be illegal. Or that a person who thinks abortion should be illegal must also think that capital punishment should be abolished.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I sincerely believe that for some of our more obnoxious members, particularly Lewk and Khend, that in actual practice they really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech. I do not think Khend is capable in practice of seeing validity in Voltaire's famous sentiment.

    But hey, if you feel this is strawmanning and something that bores you, maybe you should grow a fucking pair and challenge the straw-men Khend throws out which prompt them first. Apparently I'm offending you but you just gloss over Khend saying Rand approves of "kill the Jews," "fire in a crowded theater" or that ALL of us "Free Speech Morons usually want their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to say the most despicable things and also want not to be held accountable"
    First of all, I don't believe I can change Khen's posting style.

    Secondly--and more importantly--I don't actually know what RB's position is on the matter of whether or not it should be illegal for him to say, for example, "All Jews should be killed," or even, "Kill all the Jews."

    Believing in the complete freedom--legally speaking--to say such things is a legitimate and not-uncommon position to take on freedom of speech. Not everyone shares the same views on the legal aspects of incitement to do illegal things. Even the matter of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater may be legitimately held to be protected speech in and of itself, and only prosecuted insofar as it disrupts other people's enjoyment of a legal activity they've paid for, or disrupts someone's business.

    This kind of view would be consistent with Lewk's oft-repeated views on whether or not people should be held responsible for saying things that others actually act on (eg. "you should kill yourself"). I don't believe Lewk thinks that it should be illegal to say "allahu akbar and death to all Americans jihad woohoo" even though he believes that saying such things would justify being investigated in all manner of more or less questionable ways. I don't know for sure, but my impression has been that Dread, for example, would support the right to say "kill all the jews!!" or at least "all Jews should be killed". So, afaik, RB's response to Khen's accusation--that he wants people to be able to say things like "kill all the Jews"--may very well be, "Yes, that's exactly what I want."

    Your position may differ from theirs, sure, but, at the end of the day, I don't believe your assertion that some people on this forum "really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech" is accurate. If you were to ask Khen and Lewk, I believe each would say something along the lines of, "No, I don't believe that," with varying levels of vitriol. Of course you're free to interpret their posts and their behavior in any way you please irrespective of what they may claim about their own beliefs. That's often a necessary part of this sort of discussion. I just think that the interpretation may not hold up to scrutiny.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    First of all, I don't believe I can change Khen's posting style.
    Yet Lewk is assuredly even less flexible and likely to change than Khend and you'll go after him the same way you just went after me and for the same stated reasons. Bullshit excuse.

    Secondly--and more importantly--I don't actually know what RB's position is on the matter of whether or not it should be illegal for him to say, for example, "All Jews should be killed," or even, "Kill all the Jews."
    You don't actually know the limits Khend is willing to tolerate either. More bullshit.

    Believing in the complete freedom--legally speaking--to say such things is a legitimate and not-uncommon position to take on freedom of speech. Not everyone shares the same views on the legal aspects of incitement to do illegal things.
    They don't. There's somewhat more consensus about the meaning of incitement though. It involves persuading people, or threatening them, encouraging them, instigating them, etc. You know what it doesn't include? Highlighting something that they'll make use of for their own purposes. Which is why, for instance, incitement is NOT what Le Pen is being investigated for.

    Your position may differ from theirs, sure, but, at the end of the day, I don't believe your assertion that some people on this forum "really do believe that only the things they like should fall under free speech" is accurate.
    I don't believe your assertions either, they're clearly full of shit and for some clearly forum-partisanship reasons. But not believing them doesn't make them a straw man.

    If you were to ask Khen and Lewk, I believe each would say something along the lines of, "No, I don't believe that," with varying levels of vitriol. Of course you're free to interpret their posts and their behavior in any way you please irrespective of what they may claim about their own beliefs. That's often a necessary part of this sort of discussion. I just think that the interpretation may not hold up to scrutiny.
    Lewk, at least, has actually sometimes acknowledged specific that he might not like something but that doesn't make it illegal. He weakens that by caviling enough to get it disregarded but it's there. Khend has never posted even that much. Khend has always supported any legal action against those people and causes he does not like on here, and he has always attacked any against those he does like. He has provided ample material demonstrating these patterns.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •