Should it be legal to use ethnic slurs as insults? (13 Viewers)

[Chomsky]

Freedom comes with a host of responsibilities though. Are we responsible enough?

Our founders left that up for us, to be determined.

That's why it's called, "The Great Experiment". And through all the good & bad, the wrinkles & blemishes, it is still our great privilege to be a part of it. We must never lose sight of this.

 

[Chomsky]

If you believe in free speech, then yes. Protected speech cant just be the speech you like.

Yes,, the 1st A is specifically to protect the speech we don't like!

(I use "we", but it actually pertains to "us" acting through the auspices of governance)

And there's good reason it holds the first position among the Amendments. That's not by accident.

 

[Chomsky]

List of ethnic slurs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't need to read all that list. Just spend an evening in any Stateside comedy club! You'll hear it all!

 

[Chomsky]

It's OK to say no to shitty behavior.

The slippery slope goes both ways. Why should someone be allowed to call me a slur if I'm not allowed to punch them in the throat?

Remember, the 1st ammendment was established during a time when dueling was still legal.

Saying 'No' is fine, appropriate, and IMHO to be encouraged.

"Criminalizing", is not. Which is why Freedom of Speech is protected.

Remember the 1st A does not protect speech from individuals & private entities. It protects it from government prohibition.

 

[Chomsky]

Yes, it is. Both represent unwanted interactions. Who are you to to draw the line? More importantly, are you willing to take a chance that I'll respect that line? Sure, I may go to jail for a bit, but you still have the crushed trachea.

This is the untidy business involved in protecting assholery. If you go into a biker bar at happy hour and call everyone white trash losers, chances are you're limping out of there if you're able to walk at all. Yeah, some of them might go to jail, but no one feels sorry for you, because you're the one that started it, and the outcome should have been foreseeable.

That common sense response demonstrates the difference between freedom of speech dummies, who feel like there should be no consequences attached to that right, and reality.

Better to be polite and use your rights responsibly. If you truly feel censored through some inability to be decent, chances are you didn't have anything worth saying in the first place.

Again, the 1st amendment was established in a time where dueling was legal. Context matters. Bring dueling back and I'll support unlimited free speech.

Bingo! A citizen may enjoy freedom of speech. But that does not necessarily extrapolate to freedom from consequences!

 

[OlNate]

Bingo! A citizen may enjoy freedom of speech. But that does not necessarily extrapolate to freedom from consequences!

Unfortunately, under your current legal system, one is protected, the other makes you land in jail.

This is the problem with your free speech. It begs to be abused, which is the quickest way to lose a right. I know rights seem carved in stone, but if not maintained and looked after, even stone can crumble. You will lose your right when it is abused to the point that society no longer sees value in it, and suffers because of it. How far off do you think the day is to where society will beg to have that right taken away because they are sick and tired of what assholes do with it to enable their assholery?

Make no mistake, I do believe in free speech, in terms of how it was laid out at the start. This cautionary approach has more to do with me wanting to see it continue than it does me wanting to see it die....but, honestly, given what people do with it, it's starting to be a break even proposition.

 

[VanceMack]

The moment you endorse restriction of speech by government, you open the door for restriction of speech by unscrupulous people you may not agree with. The door swings both ways.

 

[bomberfox]

that lady is just a grifter.

 

[jaypatriot]

Most scholars agree that Canada's version constructed over the course of 20 years is superior to the one written over 200 years ago and amended HOW MANY times?

Sorry, bu world scholars and leading legal experts would NEVER put the US constitution anywhere near the top of anything!

take a look at your government!

Trump is a ****ing dictator and you're all standing around smiling as he wipes his ass with your precious constitution! That's sure working for you now!!!!
Technically Trump wouldn't even be allowed to run as an MP. He's a convicted rapist!

Great laws you got there.

Jesus, arguing superiority with Trump smashing everything breakable is hilarious!!!

WOW Mr. Loathing,
You're trying to talk friendly Americans out of visiting your lovely country because you don't like our duly elected president.
Have you been purposely punished by Trumps tariffs or are you worried you make wake up some morning and suddenly find yourself part of a 51st state paying taxes to the U.S. government in order to keep Trump in the White House?

 

[Chomsky]

Unfortunately, under your current legal system, one is protected, the other makes you land in jail.

Yes. You can speak freely. But you can't do anything illegal.

You need to evaluate your speech in the context you're using it.

This is the problem with your free speech. It begs to be abused, which is the quickest way to lose a right. I know rights seem carved in stone, but if not maintained and looked after, even stone can crumble. You will lose your right when it is abused to the point that society no longer sees value in it, and suffers because of it. How far off do you think the day is to where society will beg to have that right taken away because they are sick and tired of what assholes do with it to enable their assholery?

'No'. We never "lose the right". Any criminal repercussions are separate from any rights. We can delineate that.

And yes, freedom has its cost. It may not be for everybody. Which I can respect (but I don't want).

Make no mistake, I do believe in free speech, in terms of how it was laid out at the start. This cautionary approach has more to do with me wanting to see it continue than it does me wanting to see it die....but, honestly, given what people do with it, it's starting to be a break even proposition.

I do understand, and appreciate your respect and support.

If some exhibit poor behavior in exercising their freedom, it is what it is. Most of us do not. But it's not mine to demand others conform to my mores.

 

[OlNate]

Yes. You can speak freely. But you can't do anything illegal.

You need to evaluate your speech in the context you're using it.

Why, if there are no consequences to saying anything you like, irrespective of the impact on others?

'No'. We never "lose the right".

Of course you can lose a right. Look at the Patriot Act. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out as such, but that was the effect.

History is full of examples of things that people had the "right" to that today they do not. Wanna beat your wife? That may have been a right in the past, but not today. How about if you're a land owner wanting to bang a tennant? You used to have that right...try it today...lol

Any criminal repercussions are separate from any rights. We can delineate that.

And yes, freedom has its cost. It may not be for everybody. Which I can respect (but I don't want).

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

It's also a very subjective term. What if I want to be free of assholes? I'm definitely not alone. The definition of freedom, like rights, change over time, and reflect the society of the day. Hence the warning, and the suggestion that if you want to preserve that right, you need to prune it to fit the day. Again, when it was introduced dueling was legal. That probably made it impossible to imagine what granting that right would result in today. While there would have been checks and balances in those days, to where the government would not need to be involved in managing speech, there are no checks and balances today. It's an asshole free (there's that word again) for all.

I do understand, and appreciate your respect and support.

If some exhibit poor behavior in exercising their freedom, it is what it is. Most of us do not. But it's not mine to demand others conform to my mores.

Of course it is. As it is everyone's in a democratic society. You are not locked into anything, you just think so because someone long ago, in different circumstances, said so. That's it.

Not that I'm attempting to suggest you should take any direction from this, I'm not one of those arrogant types that think everyone should adopt how I like things done, but in Canada we do have limited free speech, in that (very seldomly, and with great judicial care) we differentiate hate speech from the rest. I have never not felt free in my country, in any way, but specifically regarding what I can and cannot say. The reason for this is because I'm not the kind of asshole that would engage in the kind of speech that is being limited. 99.99% of Canadians would fit into this category. Given that the vast majoirty of us are free to share our opinions on the government, religion, corporations, each other, etc, why show up for the assholes? I see no upside.

The world is shrinking due to the various different people in it. Getting along is becoming more and more critical to our survival. Certainly more important that some piece of shit loser having the "right" to be an asshole.

But bring back dueling, and we have a deal.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

No, it shouldn’t. Unless it’s to provoke violence.

Ideally, in a free society, the use of such words would be policed by peer pressure. Enough of us would be negatively responsive to the use of such language that it would make others very uncomfortable to use it. So they wouldn’t.

Such language is an expression of an idea. Ideas can’t be forced out of existence. However, the apprehension of being negatively subjected to peer pressure, shunning, can keep such ideas hidden under the rocks where they belong.

Witness Trump’s effect on this nation. His behavior, language and actions gave those with these ideas reason to believe the heat was off and out from under the rocks they came. Never truly gone. There will always be some of us with fear of the other, and that’s where the need to lower others comes from; fear. You only feel the need to make others smaller, insignificant, when you feel you can’t stand tall on your own merit.

 

[Lovebug]

You don't need to read all that list. Just spend an evening in any Stateside comedy club! You'll hear it all!

I didn't know that.

 

[Chomsky]

Why, if there are no consequences to saying anything you like, irrespective of the impact on others?

You're mischaracterizing this.

I'll distill it simply & universally. You have freedoms, but you can't commit crimes.

Of course you can lose a right. Look at the Patriot Act. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out as such, but that was the effect.

History is full of examples of things that people had the "right" to that today they do not. Wanna beat your wife? That may have been a right in the past, but not today. How about if you're a land owner wanting to bang a tennant? You used to have that right...try it today...lol

I actually thought of this when I was earlier typing.

You don't lose the general right per se, but yes - it becomes infringed upon.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

It's also a very subjective term. What if I want to be free of assholes? I'm definitely not alone. The definition of freedom, like rights, change over time, and reflect the society of the day. Hence the warning, and the suggestion that if you want to preserve that right, you need to prune it to fit the day. Again, when it was introduced dueling was legal. That probably made it impossible to imagine what granting that right would result in today. While there would have been checks and balances in those days, to where the government would not need to be involved in managing speech, there are no checks and balances today. It's an asshole free (there's that word again) for all.

I wasn't more specific in my use of "freedom" because I assumed the context of the 1st A & "Freedom of Speech".

Of course it is. As it is everyone's in a democratic society. You are not locked into anything, you just think so because someone long ago, in different circumstances, said so. That's it.

Not that I'm attempting to suggest you should take any direction from this, I'm not one of those arrogant types that think everyone should adopt how I like things done, but in Canada we do have limited free speech, in that (very seldomly, and with great judicial care) we differentiate hate speech from the rest. I have never not felt free in my country, in any way, but specifically regarding what I can and cannot say. The reason for this is because I'm not the kind of asshole that would engage in the kind of speech that is being limited. 99.99% of Canadians would fit into this category. Given that the vast majoirty of us are free to share our opinions on the government, religion, corporations, each other, etc, why show up for the assholes? I see no upside.

The world is shrinking due to the various different people in it. Getting along is becoming more and more critical to our survival. Certainly more important that some piece of shit loser having the "right" to be an asshole. k

But bring back dueling, and we have a deal.

The problem is that long established norms are being broken. These breaks will need to be evaluated in terms of their Constitutionality. The Justices will interpret the Constitution's application. No big deal.

It's actually a very good system, in my opinion.

 

[Chomsky]

I didn't know that.

You've never seen unfiltered current stand-up? Even on cable? Or, streaming? For many, "shock" is part of the experience! Think early Howard Stern on steroids!

 

[bomberfox]

You seem to be mistaking conservatives for Republicans.
There's nothing conservative about the magatry. Magats are Republicans. Conservatives are Republicans. Magats are not conservatives. Republican Party left conservatism behind years ago.

Au contraire. Trump’s dismantling of the administrative state is extremely conservative.

 

[Lutherf]

Been following the Shiloh Hendrix show, and was curious.

It should definitely be illegal. In fact, any time that anyone is offended by anything anyone else does they should be allowed to sue and recover reparations from the offending party. It's the only way we can save freedom and democracy!

 

[Lovebug]

You've never seen unfiltered current stand-up? Even on cable? Or, streaming? For many, "shock" is part of the experience! Think early Howard Stern on steroids!

No, I'm so not interested.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So you resort to lying.

There was no lie.

So your defense is that everyone supports BLM? You’re just going to lie again?

My statement stands on its own. If you have to twist it into something I didn't say, perhaps you should reflect on your own position instead of attacking one I didn't stake.

Oh what a happy coincidence for all the racist conservatives!

I wouldn't know.

Not a crime. Your post is exceedingly wrong. This one was really easy to google and very definitively wrong, too.

Entering illegally is most certainly a crime. If Google told you otherwise, your Google is broken. Mine, on the other hand is working just fine and leads me to this handy piece of the US Code: 8 USC 1325(a)

No they weren’t, their lawyers denied this and their US citizen father wasn’t involved.

Oh, their lawyers denied it? Then obviously ICE disregarded the law and put these children into removal proceedings and deported them! Or they didn't, because there's no mechanism for doing so, and the mother elected to take them with her.

 

[Deuce]

Legal? Sure.

If you get your ass kicked in response, that's your own problem though.

 

[gman]

Legal? Sure.

If you get your ass kicked in response, that's your own problem though.

You beat me to it.

 

[OlNate]

You're mischaracterizing this.

I'll distill it simply & universally. You have freedoms, but you can't commit crimes.



I actually thought of this when I was earlier typing.

You don't lose the general right per se, but yes - it becomes infringed upon.



I wasn't more specific in my use of "freedom" because I assumed the context of the 1st A & "Freedom of Speech".



The problem is that long established norms are being broken. These breaks will need to be evaluated in terms of their Constitutionality. The Justices will interpret the Constitution's application. No big deal.

It's actually a very good system, in my opinion.

Hehe... well, my friend, I hope that we agree on enough for you to tolerate me disagreeing with you on this one. I like ours better.

As an interesting side note, this may be one of this cultural differences between our two countries. When people say we're the same, I would encourage them to watch a debate between Canadians and Americans on both your first and second amendment.

 

[OlNate]

Legal? Sure.

If you get your ass kicked in response, that's your own problem though.

That's the way it should be. Unfortunately only one person goes to jail in that scenario.

 

[rahl]

1st amendment guarantees the right to use them.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yes, it is. Both represent unwanted interactions.

So what? I don't like it when spammers call my cell phone. That's an "unwanted interaction," so according to you I should be able to track them down and throat punch them? Be serious.

Who are you to to draw the line?

Someone who can recognize the difference between mean words and physical violence. Since you can't, I'm comfortable with you being prevented from having a say in where the line is drawn.

More importantly, are you willing to take a chance that I'll respect that line? Sure, I may go to jail for a bit, but you still have the crushed trachea.

This is the untidy business involved in protecting assholery. If you go into a biker bar at happy hour and call everyone white trash losers, chances are you're limping out of there if you're able to walk at all. Yeah, some of them might go to jail, but no one feels sorry for you, because you're the one that started it, and the outcome should have been foreseeable.

I don't see what any of this has to do with anything being discussed. You posited above that you should be allowed to punch someone in the throat in response to a slur. People being criminally charged for doing so is not "being allowed to" do what they did.

Bring dueling back and I'll support unlimited free speech.

Support (or don't) whatever you wish. THankfully, your view is not the current state of the law in the United States.