• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Updated rules - Hate Messages [W:27, 43, 103]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think hate speech rules are quite necessary. If people are being attacked en masse for something beyond their control, in order to be fair, you either allow the person in the group thus attacked to fire back, or you do not allow the hate speech. Since those in the targeted group cannot fire back in a similar fashion without it being considered a personal attack, it is necessary to address the hate speech.

Having proted classes based upon ideology, however, runs against the entire reason for the hate speech rules.
I'm firmly against hate-crime laws of any kind....but this isn't the state. This is a private forum. These are basically house rules while in the Admin's property, and whoever can't deal is welcome to leave.
 
I'm firmly against hate-crime laws of any kind....but this isn't the state. This is a private forum. These are basically house rules while in the Admin's property, and whoever can't deal is welcome to leave.

I think it goes without saying that the owners of a web site are free to run it as they wish.
 
Meh, it's clear to me. It was pretty obvious to me that the list entitled "protected groups are" was the list specifying what DP consider's to be protected groups. Also, I'm pretty sure the protected group in Jerry's example was "Americans" who are in the national origin protected group not gun owners.

Glad its obvious to you. Not to me.

Bold: perhaps I should have also added the word "ability"?
 
Glad its obvious to you. Not to me.

Bold: perhaps I should have also added the word "ability"?
Well, it can't get much clearer than literally listing the groups DP considers "protected" in a list entitled "protected groups are" so if it wasn't obvious to you, I don't know how they could make it more obvious. Maybe you just misread it and it's not an actual problem?
 
If hate speech rules and legislation in America are anything like they are here in Canada, they are used by the left as weapons against their political opponents on the right and in power. They are so poorly written, so open to abuse, that they make a mockery of attempts to stop truly, intentionally, hateful speech and actions.
As National Hate Speech Rules go, Canada's seems the most sensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada said:
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'
It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
In Europe, Truth is Not a defense, tho Wilders was Acquitted using a 'public debate' exception:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/us-dutch-wilders-idUSTRE75M10P20110623
"..The presiding judge said Wilders's remarks were sometimes "Hurtful," "Shocking" or "Offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore Not a criminal act.
Tho 'truth', as in Canada, would have been more accurate, the court's ruling was very sensible.
But much of what Wilders says about Islam/Muslims would have gotten him thrown off DP IMO.

So my questions:
1. If one were to say, and Many have, "Islam is inherently violent", or "Islam is Inordinately violent", or the Wilders-esque "the Koran reads like Mein Kampf"; are any of those Now in violation?
2. Is this string/OP which Claims there are Racial differences in IQ still legal?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...ences-average-iq-largely-genetic-w-957-a.html
 
Last edited:
I'm firmly against hate-crime laws of any kind....but this isn't the state. This is a private forum. These are basically house rules while in the Admin's property, and whoever can't deal is welcome to leave.

This is absolutely true - but I would note, when "members" donate to the upkeep of a site they tend to feel a sense of ownership in "the cause" or at least a stake in it. Members voicing contrary opinions, not just parroting the powers that be, is a true sign of the vibrancy of the site and should be encouraged, not dismissed with a backhanded "if you don't like it, you can leave".
 
As National Hate Speech Rules go, Canada's seems the most sensible.

In Europe, Truth is Not a defense, tho Wilders was Acquitted using a 'public debate' exception:
The presiding judge said Wilders's remarks were sometimes "hurtful," "shocking" or "offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.
Tho 'truth', as in Canada, would have been more accurate, the court's ruling was very sensible.
But much of what Wilders says about Islam/Muslims would have gotten him thrown off here.

So my questions:
1. If one were to say, and Many have, "Islam is inherently violent", or "Islam is Inordinately violent", or the Wilders-esque "the Koran reads like Mein Kampf"; are any of those now in violation?
2. Is this string/OP which Claims there are Racial differences in IQ still legal.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...ences-average-iq-largely-genetic-w-957-a.html

Actually, your Wikipedia reference needs to be updated. the Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that even if the speech is truth, it can be hate speech under the Human Rights Code and the person speaking the truth, if it offends someone or even if it may possibly offend someone, is subject to penalty. The ruling was ridiculed as outrageous across Canada. This is the depths to which political correctness has sunk our society today.
 
Well, it can't get much clearer than literally listing the groups DP considers "protected" in a list entitled "protected groups are" so if it wasn't obvious to you, I don't know how they could make it more obvious. Maybe you just misread it and it's not an actual problem?

As I already stated, it is not known if that is a complete list. There are many "protected classes" that are not on that list. A few has already been listed in this thread.
 
Last edited:
This is absolutely true - but I would note, when "members" donate to the upkeep of a site they tend to feel a sense of ownership in "the cause" or at least a stake in it. Members voicing contrary opinions, not just parroting the powers that be, is a true sign of the vibrancy of the site and should be encouraged, not dismissed with a backhanded "if you don't like it, you can leave".

It no more makes us donors the "owner" (sense of or not) than it makes a customer of a restaurant an owner.
 
This is absolutely true - but I would note, when "members" donate to the upkeep of a site they tend to feel a sense of ownership in "the cause" or at least a stake in it. Members voicing contrary opinions, not just parroting the powers that be, is a true sign of the vibrancy of the site and should be encouraged, not dismissed with a backhanded "if you don't like it, you can leave".
And now you know why you don't see a donation plaque below my name anymore.
 
It no more makes us donors the "owner" (sense of or not) than it makes a customer of a restaurant an owner.

But a good restaurant, and one that stays open as a viable business, listens to what customers have to say and doesn't just dismiss them and tell them to go eat at the place down the street.
 
As National Hate Speech Rules go, Canada's seems the most sensible.

In Europe, Truth is Not a defense, tho Wilders was Acquitted using a 'public debate' exception:
Dutch populist Geert Wilders acquitted of hate speech | Reuters
"..The presiding judge said Wilders's remarks were sometimes "Hurtful," "Shocking" or "Offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore Not a criminal act.
Tho 'truth', as in Canada, would have been more accurate, the court's ruling was very sensible.
But much of what Wilders says about Islam/Muslims would have gotten him thrown off DP IMO.

So my questions:
1. If one were to say, and Many have, "Islam is inherently violent", or "Islam is Inordinately violent", or the Wilders-esque "the Koran reads like Mein Kampf"; are any of those Now in violation?
2. Is this string/OP which Claims there are Racial differences in IQ still legal?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...ences-average-iq-largely-genetic-w-957-a.html

Good points. I'd like an answer for your questions as well.
 
But a good restaurant, and one that stays open as a viable business, listens to what customers have to say and doesn't just dismiss them and tell them to go eat at the place down the street.

Not always. If you went into a restaurant who has a rule of "no cussing" and you went into it cussing and claiming what some are claiming in this thread you would be kicked out. Happens all the time in high end restaurants.
 
As I already stated, it is not known if that is a complete list. There are many "protected classes" that are not on that list. A few has already been listed in this thread.
CC already confirmed that it was the complete list. The list that starts with "Protected class are:" is the list of groups considered protected by DP. This really just sounds like a case of you misreading something.
 
Last edited:
CC already confirmed that it was the complete list. The list that starts with "Protected class are:" is the list of groups considered protected by DP. This really just sounds like a case of you misreading something.

Yes he clairified it to me. But the issue being clairfied here is meaningless since this thread will eventually be lost in the annuals of time. The fact that it had to be clarified shows that it should also be clairfied in the rule itself. Even if they just added the word "complete" to the phrase "Protected groups are:" would be enough to get that fixed.

Also mbig brought up a good point also. While I understand that you can't cover every possible example in a rule there should be some sort of disclaimer to the effect that some instances of discussion are allowed. Exactly how to phrase that I'm not sure but I do seem to recall a disclaimer along those lines having once been in the rules section but has apparently since been taken out from when I first read them.
 
If it was so clear then why would I have asked the question? ;) IE just because it is clear to you does not mean that it is clear to everyone. The reason that it is clear to you is that you are already thinking of those specific things when you and the other Mods wrote the rule. For those coming in without having had the benefit of the discussion you Mods had when forming the rule it appears that it could/should also include any other "protected" group and that your list is not complete. After all, citizens owning guns is a protected group under the 2nd Amendment which is why Jerry brought it up.

No, citizens owning guns would not be considered a protected group under the rule.
 
Actually, your Wikipedia reference needs to be updated. the Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that even if the speech is truth, it can be hate speech under the Human Rights Code and the person speaking the truth, if it offends someone or even if it may possibly offend someone, is subject to penalty. The ruling was ridiculed as outrageous across Canada. This is the depths to which political correctness has sunk our society today.

Why are countries all over the world suddenly all becoming PC at the same time? It sure does seem to stifle dissent, doesn't it?

Move along, nothing to see here, so pay no attention to the man, or men, behind the curtain orchestrating all this! :shock:
 
As I already stated, it is not known if that is a complete list. There are many "protected classes" that are not on that list. A few has already been listed in this thread.

Those on the list are the complete list for the HS rule on this site.
 
Yes he clairified it to me. But the issue being clairfied here is meaningless since this thread will eventually be lost in the annuals of time. The fact that it had to be clarified shows that it should also be clairfied in the rule itself. Even if they just added the word "complete" to the phrase "Protected groups are:" would be enough to get that fixed.
Just because some people needed a rule to be clarified doesn't mean that there is a problem with the wording of the rule itself. There's always somebody who doesn't think something is clear enough. I don't see a problem with adding the word "complete" if that's what the mods want to do, though.

Also mbig brought up a good point also. While I understand that you can't cover every possible example in a rule there should be some sort of disclaimer to the effect that some instances of discussion are allowed. Exactly how to phrase that I'm not sure but I do seem to recall a disclaimer along those lines having once been in the rules section but has apparently since been taken out from when I first read them.
Meh, I think it's fine as it is.
 
Last edited:
1) This thread is NOT to discuss whether hate speech rules/laws are appropriate or not. If you want to do that, start another thread.
2) The rules, in general, have been lightened, so that more opportunity for CIVIL free speech can occur. We received concerns from members about the restrictiveness of the HS rule, so we addressed it... demonstrating that anyone saying that we do not listen to the membership doesn't know what they are talking about.
3) Listening and agreeing are two different things. Important to remember that.
4) I am not going to field a mess of questions about examples. In general, making EXTREME attacking comments that fit in any of those categories towards any of those groups would get you an infraction. People, the rule has been LIGHTENED. If you never got a HS infraction before, and you continue to post as you do, it is even LESS likely that you will get a HS infraction now.

And as an aside, no example that I have seen posted in this thread would be considered EXTREME.
 
Last edited:
Can that be said in the rule? Just one little word could fix this part of the misunderstanding. :)

Truthfully, Kal, the rule reads very clearly that those groups are the groups that are protected for the rule. It has also be clarified for you. However, if adding something that indicates that those are the ONLY groups that are protected, I will bring it to the rest of the Mod Team and see about altering the wording.
 
Truthfully, Kal, the rule reads very clearly that those groups are the groups that are protected for the rule. It has also be clarified for you. However, if adding something that indicates that those are the ONLY groups that are protected, I will bring it to the rest of the Mod Team and see about altering the wording.

That would be appreciated. My concern wasn't so much for my understanding as I did understand it. My concern was mainly for those future posters/Mods or possible future posters that read the rules before deciding to join up that do not how things work around here. I know how the current mods work and generally have no problems with how you conduct your work. In my personal experiance you all have always been fair in how you applied the various rules here in allowing somethings even though they could have "technically violated" some of the rules. I don't know how future Mods will be however and I am seeing ways in which this rule could be abused in a "technically correct" way.

Edit: (you know how semantical and "technically correct" some people get. ;) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom