Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Using your freedom of speech Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:47:50 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
Not that it matters, but I've never heard people refer to it as "the state". Our general term is government. As in: we have three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. We do have a "Department of State" aka State Department. But when you refer to "the state", and are speaking to another American, they'll most likely ask "which one?".

1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2012 3:02:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

Excuse me;but if my understanding is correct, Supreme Court is part of the STATE and not the Goverment.
STATE has three pillars functioning independently, Excutive (the Government) Legislature (the Congress) and JUDICIARY.


LadyX wrote:
Not that it matters, but I've never heard people refer to it as "the state". Our general term is government. As in: we have three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. We do have a "Department of State" aka State Department. But when you refer to "the state", and are speaking to another American, they'll most likely ask "which one?".


LadyX is essentially correct. Because our government relies on checks and balances between the three branches, they are all aspects of our government because they all govern. But the entirety of the government is sometimes called "the state" as in "man vs. the state" or "the Department of State" (which represents the US Government (as the embodied will of the people of the US) in foreign affairs).

The original plan was to be many states that appear to the rest of the world to have one national face. The states can't negotiate treaties with other nations, wage war on other nations, etc.




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LillyLush
Posted: Saturday, September 9, 2017 10:30:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/26/2012
Posts: 285
Location: Floating over NYC
These days freedom of speech, expression or even thought is basically a sort of rebellion against values of humanity. This is causing serious fragmentation in our society.



I wanna be the fantasy that you got on your mind
patokl
Posted: Sunday, September 10, 2017 1:56:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/2/2014
Posts: 14,270
Location: Floating on a cloud
As far as I know, discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation etc. and acts of violence are against the law. Speech that promotes or incites such violence or discrimination should therefore also be outlawed, because inciting a crime is a crime in itself and, if I'm not mistaken, a felony under American law.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.


Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Sunday, September 10, 2017 7:37:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
patokl wrote:
As far as I know, discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation etc. and acts of violence are against the law. Speech that promotes or incites such violence or discrimination should therefore also be outlawed, because inciting a crime is a crime in itself and, if I'm not mistaken, a felony under American law.


That is a very slippery slope, Patokl, and one we should never test. One of the limitations we have on free speech is speech that plausibly incites violence or directly leads to imminent danger. It's an extremely dangerous concept to believe that if you express discriminatory views, you are violating your right to free speech. Unless that expression leads to violence -- and it can be proven in a court of law that violence would not have occurred had those words not been expressed -- there is no crime.

Imagine a world where the government can determine which speech is offensive and dangerous and lock up anyone who expresses those views. We don't have to imagine. Just look at North Korea.
principessa
Posted: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:49:11 AM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,809
Location: Canada
patokl wrote:
As far as I know, discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation etc. and acts of violence are against the law. Speech that promotes or incites such violence or discrimination should therefore also be outlawed, because inciting a crime is a crime in itself and, if I'm not mistaken, a felony under American law.


While there are some jurisdictions where there are laws against hate speech, as a generality democratic countries do not put a limit on the content of freedom of speech. The idea is that all ideas, even odious ones, may be presented and argued about in the marketplace of ideas. It is up to those who abhor racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-semitic speech to speak up against it, and demonstrate that the majority of the population also abhors such speech. Remember also that you cannot arrest someone for what they think or what they might do. The ACLU in the US which is a highly respected constitutional rights organization has defended the rights of some to speak despite the loathsome content of their speech.

patokl
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:57:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/2/2014
Posts: 14,270
Location: Floating on a cloud
JustSomeJoe wrote:


That is a very slippery slope, Patokl, and one we should never test. One of the limitations we have on free speech is speech that plausibly incites violence or directly leads to imminent danger. It's an extremely dangerous concept to believe that if you express discriminatory views, you are violating your right to free speech. Unless that expression leads to violence -- and it can be proven in a court of law that violence would not have occurred had those words not been expressed -- there is no crime.

Imagine a world where the government can determine which speech is offensive and dangerous and lock up anyone who expresses those views. We don't have to imagine. Just look at North Korea.


principessa wrote:


While there are some jurisdictions where there are laws against hate speech, as a generality democratic countries do not put a limit on the content of freedom of speech. The idea is that all ideas, even odious ones, may be presented and argued about in the marketplace of ideas. It is up to those who abhor racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-semitic speech to speak up against it, and demonstrate that the majority of the population also abhors such speech. Remember also that you cannot arrest someone for what they think or what they might do. The ACLU in the US which is a highly respected constitutional rights organization has defended the rights of some to speak despite the loathsome content of their speech.


I wasn't talking about having an opinion about things and expressing that, I was talking about inciting people to act upon those opinions and promoting illegal behaviour. The latter should not be free speech imho. Let me give some examples. For the record, I don't subscribe to the views I use as examples.

There is a difference between being saying "Whites are the superior race" and saying "Let's chase all blacks out of our neighbourhoods" and between saying "Faggots are sinners a the Jews betrayed Jesus" and "Death to faggots and Jews". It's the difference between expressing ones opinion and inciting a crime, which is a crime in itself, and therefore can't be free speech.

Edit: It should never be the executive branch of government that determines what is and isn't free speech, it should always be determined in a court of law.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.


Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:02:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
patokl wrote:


There is a difference between being saying "Whites are the superior race" and saying "Let's chase all blacks out of our neighbourhoods" and between saying "Faggots are sinners a the Jews betrayed Jesus" and "Death to faggots and Jews". It's the difference between expressing ones opinion and inciting a crime, which is a crime in itself, and therefore can't be free speech.



Saying "death to faggots and Jews" isn't a crime unless someone actually murders a "faggot or Jew" in reaction to those words. Even then, it's nearly impossible to prove that someone committed murder because of words. This notion that words are as harmful as actions is at the forefront of the Antifa movement. It provides them with the justification to commit assault. This idea also gave birth to "safe spaces", "trigger words", "micro-aggressions" and all the other nonsense that is rotting the brains of college kids across the US.

Black Lives Matter is fond of chanting "death to the police", "fry them like bacon", "kill the white people", etc.. If words are the same as violence, they -- and Antifa -- should have been locked up long ago. Fortunately, they have every right to demonstrate to the world just how ignorant and violent they are.
Liz
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:28:52 AM

Rank: Scarlet Seductress
Moderator

Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 8,397
Location: In the sweet shop, United Kingdom
JustSomeJoe wrote:
Saying "death to faggots and Jews" isn't a crime unless someone actually murders a "faggot or Jew" in reaction to those words.


It is in the UK. I believe France and Finland also both have incitement to racial discrimination and hatred offences.



JustSomeJoe
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:30:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
Canada also has some harsh restrictions on speech. Orwell's 1984 is quickly becoming a reality.
noll
Posted: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:16:22 PM

Rank: Ping Kong

Joined: 7/4/2013
Posts: 4,542
Location: Basement
JustSomeJoe wrote:
Black Lives Matter is fond of chanting "death to the police", "fry them like bacon", "kill the white people", etc..


Not really mainstream BLM now is it?

patokl
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:20:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/2/2014
Posts: 14,270
Location: Floating on a cloud
JustSomeJoe wrote:


Saying "death to faggots and Jews" isn't a crime unless someone actually murders a "faggot or Jew" in reaction to those words. Even then, it's nearly impossible to prove that someone committed murder because of words. This notion that words are as harmful as actions is at the forefront of the Antifa movement. It provides them with the justification to commit assault. This idea also gave birth to "safe spaces", "trigger words", "micro-aggressions" and all the other nonsense that is rotting the brains of college kids across the US.

Black Lives Matter is fond of chanting "death to the police", "fry them like bacon", "kill the white people", etc.. If words are the same as violence, they -- and Antifa -- should have been locked up long ago. Fortunately, they have every right to demonstrate to the world just how ignorant and violent they are.

In many European countries inciting violence and racism is indeed illegal and justly so. Inciting a crime is a crime, even without someone acting on it. Whether it's a KKK member or an Antifa member who does it is immaterial, encouraging people to commit murder (and that basically is what slogans like that do) is a crime.

For the record, Black Lives Matter is a slogan that many people identify with and is adopted by a variety of groups and organisations, but it isn't a single hierarchic organisation like for instance the KKK is. There certainly are extremists wearing the slogan, but both they and the Antifa are excesses who do not represent the politcal left, just like the KKK and the Aryan brotherhood do not represent the political right.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.


Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i
adele
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:27:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/8/2011
Posts: 24,248
Location: if I knew where I was then I would not be here...
JustSomeJoe wrote:
Saying "death to faggots and Jews" isn't a crime unless someone actually murders a "faggot or Jew" in reaction to those words. Even then, it's nearly impossible to prove that someone committed murder because of words. This notion that words are as harmful as actions is at the forefront of the Antifa movement. It provides them with the justification to commit assault. This idea also gave birth to "safe spaces", "trigger words", "micro-aggressions" and all the other nonsense that is rotting the brains of college kids across the US.

Black Lives Matter is fond of chanting "death to the police", "fry them like bacon", "kill the white people", etc.. If words are the same as violence, they -- and Antifa -- should have been locked up long ago. Fortunately, they have every right to demonstrate to the world just how ignorant and violent they are.

Just recently, Michelle Carter was convicted of manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend who committed suicide in 2014. She had sent him numerous texts encouraging him to do so. Recent laws regarding cyber bullying have made it a crime, that is prosecutable, even if it does not result in physical harm to someone or damage to property. If it does, The bully can also be charged in connection with those crimes. Something, such as releasing names of spies, or undercover police that puts those people in jeopardy can also result in criminal charges. And of course, there is the proverbial example of shouting of "Fire" in a crowded theater and similar type speech, which has long been considered an exception to the 1st amendment.

Read my latest story, Fun in Cabo Part 3

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/lesbian/fun-in-cabo-part-3.aspx

Another good read - Mistress Ashley Meets Her Match

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/reluctance/mistress-ashley-meets-her-match.aspx

Also, check out my Bookish Stories competition entry, Alicia Discovers Porn

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/masturbation/alicia-discovers-porn.aspx
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:37:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
patokl wrote:

In many European countries inciting violence and racism is indeed illegal and justly so.


"Justly so?" I'm completely stunned by that statement. It opposes everything the Unites States, Western civilization, and Enlightenment philosophy represents. Just because Europe (and Canada) are plummeting into the abyss down that slippery slope toward tyranny and Orwellian thought policing doesn't mean we should follow. A person's thoughts and words are the foundation of freedom and liberty. You strip that away, and what's left?

And who decides which words are "inciting violence" or "racism?" In Canada, parts of Europe, and on US college campuses, there is a push to punish anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or nouns to describe another person's gender. Not to get into that debate again, but don't you see what is happening? In order to rebuild a society from the ground up, you must first completely tear it apart from the top down. The language must be altered. Traditions must be scrapped. Patriotism must be vilified. This is all happening as we type.

I suggest re-reading 1984 and Animal Farm -- or simply revisit the historical events leading to the Russian Revolution. It may seem like an inconsequential -- or even beneficial -- act to ban hateful speech, but it's a stepping stone to some seriously evil shit. Take a moment to think about what it is you're advocating. Read the words of our Founding Fathers and understand why the First Amendment exists in the first place -- and why it's at the very top of our Bill of Rights.

JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:47:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
adele wrote:

Just recently, Michelle Carter was convicted of manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend who committed suicide in 2014.


And that was a very dangerous precedent to set. What the court is basically suggesting is that people are no longer responsible for their own actions. What they suggest is that another person's words have the power to compel you to act. That is an extremely disturbing line of thought that leads down the path to some very dangerous consequences.

Re. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, I really wish people would stop using that example, as it's been discredited for a very long time. The decision in which Justice Holmes used that example was overturned almost half a century ago. The original case was about a guy who was arrested for handing out pamphlets in opposition to WWI. Holmes used the "crowded theater" example as an analogy. It had nothing to do with the actual case.

Not only was that man sent to prison for his anti-war protesting, but so were two others shortly thereafter. It wasn't until 1969 that the cases were overturned. (I think we could all agree, rightfully so.) This is the "slippery slope" I mentioned earlier. If the government suddenly decides that speaking against the government is a form of "hate speech" or "violence", then we may as well be living in Soviet-era Russia or modern-day North Korea. Careful what you wish for!
Just_A_Guy_You_Know
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:58:17 AM

Rank: Forum Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 6/17/2015
Posts: 979
Location: Not Nebraska, United States
JustSomeJoe wrote:
In Canada, parts of Europe, and on US college campuses, there is a push to punish anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or nouns to describe another person's gender.


Nope.

Gratuitous Expletives!
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:04:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
Just_A_Guy_You_Know wrote:


Nope.


Yep.
Burquette
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:19:49 AM

Rank: Bug
Moderator

Joined: 12/27/2015
Posts: 1,571
JustSomeJoe wrote:


Saying "death to faggots and Jews" isn't a crime unless someone actually murders a "faggot or Jew" in reaction to those words. Even then, it's nearly impossible to prove that someone committed murder because of words. This notion that words are as harmful as actions is at the forefront of the Antifa movement. It provides them with the justification to commit assault. This idea also gave birth to "safe spaces", "trigger words", "micro-aggressions" and all the other nonsense that is rotting the brains of college kids across the US.

Black Lives Matter is fond of chanting "death to the police", "fry them like bacon", "kill the white people", etc.. If words are the same as violence, they -- and Antifa -- should have been locked up long ago. Fortunately, they have every right to demonstrate to the world just how ignorant and violent they are.


Ahhh... however, if you yell at me, "You should die, [insert insulting name referring to my gender or sexuality]" I might be able to get away with punching you.

It's called fighting words and it's not protected speech.

Every right comes with regulation.



Old books are sexy.

Gutenberg
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:40:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
Burquette wrote:


Ahhh... however, if you yell at me, "You should die, [insert insulting name referring to my gender or sexuality]" I might be able to get away with punching you.

It's called fighting words and it's not protected speech.

Every right comes with regulation.


I'm no legal scholar, but I can't help but question the logic behind that concept. The problem is: where do you draw the line? If insulting me allows me to justifiably assault you without legal recourse, then who is to say what I find insulting? And how much of an assault am I allowed to commit? Can I use a weapon? Pepper spray? Spit in your face when I'm suffering from a head cold? You see the problem with this line of thought?

What if I'm insulted by the way you look? What if I'm insulted by the way you're dressed or the color of your skin or the way you cut your hair?

Nothing gives me the right to assault you unless you assault me first -- with actions, not words. Anything else results in chaos and anarchy.
Burquette
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:35:30 PM

Rank: Bug
Moderator

Joined: 12/27/2015
Posts: 1,571
JustSomeJoe wrote:


I'm no legal scholar, but I can't help but question the logic behind that concept. The problem is: where do you draw the line? If insulting me allows me to justifiably assault you without legal recourse, then who is to say what I find insulting? And how much of an assault am I allowed to commit? Can I use a weapon? Pepper spray? Spit in your face when I'm suffering from a head cold? You see the problem with this line of thought?

What if I'm insulted by the way you look? What if I'm insulted by the way you're dressed or the color of your skin or the way you cut your hair?

Nothing gives me the right to assault you unless you assault me first -- with actions, not words. Anything else results in chaos and anarchy.


To be fair, I'm not a legal scholar either.

It's a very rarely used lack of protection. So, a judge would have to deem the offense was so great as to make knee-jerk violence possible. The Westboro Baptist Church wasn't found to be using "fighting words" because they almost never focused their rants at a specific person. So, "God hates fags" is protected but "God hates that faggot, Burquette" might not be. Might.







Old books are sexy.

Gutenberg
hayley
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:01:57 PM

Rank: Mad Hatter

Joined: 11/19/2012
Posts: 6,186
Location: NYC, United States
JustSomeJoe wrote:


I'm no legal scholar, but I can't help but question the logic behind that concept. The problem is: where do you draw the line? If insulting me allows me to justifiably assault you without legal recourse, then who is to say what I find insulting? And how much of an assault am I allowed to commit? Can I use a weapon? Pepper spray? Spit in your face when I'm suffering from a head cold? You see the problem with this line of thought?

What if I'm insulted by the way you look? What if I'm insulted by the way you're dressed or the color of your skin or the way you cut your hair?

Nothing gives me the right to assault you unless you assault me first -- with actions, not words. Anything else results in chaos and anarchy.


This month, in the UK, a guy was sentenced to a year in prison for posting on facebook that all Brirish muslims should be killed. Seems he posted a bit of a tirade on his fb page after the Manchester terrorist attack that killed all those peeps at the Ariana Grande concert. After an hour or so he took it down and posted something more moderate. Too late it appears.

Read it

JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:30:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
Thank god the US is a little less Orwellian than the UK. I suggest we not follow their lead down the septic pipes.

adele
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:47:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/8/2011
Posts: 24,248
Location: if I knew where I was then I would not be here...
JustSomeJoe wrote:
What they suggest is that another person's words have the power to compel you to act.

A lot of people are extremely open to suggestion and most people are open to at least some suggestion. Look at cults where a charismatic leader gets people to turn over everything they own to the cult. Look at Jim Jones who convinced over 900 people to commit suicide. Look at other religious leaders who convince people to donate 20, 30% or more of their income to their "church" while they live in homes worth millions of dollars and have chauffeur driven cars and private planes. Look at sales people who talk people into buying things they don't need, or adding a bunch of bells and whistles to something they are buying.

If no person's words can convince someone to act, then explain to me why sales people are a vital part of many businesses. Explain why companies spend billions of dollars every year advertising. Is it that much of a stretch from those examples to convincing someone to commit a crime or kill themselves? I agree that a high standard of proof is needed, but I do think it can definitely be proven.

Read my latest story, Fun in Cabo Part 3

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/lesbian/fun-in-cabo-part-3.aspx

Another good read - Mistress Ashley Meets Her Match

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/reluctance/mistress-ashley-meets-her-match.aspx

Also, check out my Bookish Stories competition entry, Alicia Discovers Porn

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/masturbation/alicia-discovers-porn.aspx
Just_A_Guy_You_Know
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:51:16 PM

Rank: Forum Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 6/17/2015
Posts: 979
Location: Not Nebraska, United States
JustSomeJoe wrote:
Yep.


JustSomeJoe wrote:
In Canada, parts of Europe, and on US college campuses, there is a push to punish anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or nouns to describe another person's gender.


Sorry, but no. I'm calling bullshit on this. Do you have a specific case you're referring to, or is it (as I suspect) a deliberately paranoid and reductionist misunderstanding of the issues at hand? Who is being punished for using the wrong pronouns or nouns to describe another person's gender? And how are they being punished? And where?

Gratuitous Expletives!
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:25:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
I really hate when people force me to Google for them. But here goes:

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

(Note the second paragraph about "propaganda", which opens the door to a wide range of prosecution against pamphlets, signage, websites, Facebook posts, etc. And yes, I'm well aware of the counter-argument from the trans-advocates who insist that will never happen. Forgive me if I don't believe them.)

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dw.com/en/berlin-government-to-ban-sexist-advertising-on-billboards/a-39336264

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/amp/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11584/oxford-university-students-use-gender-neutral-hank-berrien

http://www.ago.wv.gov/Documents/2017.02.24%20Trans%20letter.PDF

I can Google a few more for you, but what's the point?
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:28:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
adele wrote:

A lot of people are extremely open to suggestion and most people are open to at least some suggestion. Look at cults where a charismatic leader gets people to turn over everything they own to the cult. Look at Jim Jones who convinced over 900 people to commit suicide. Look at other religious leaders who convince people to donate 20, 30% or more of their income to their "church" while they live in homes worth millions of dollars and have chauffeur driven cars and private planes. Look at sales people who talk people into buying things they don't need, or adding a bunch of bells and whistles to something they are buying.

If no person's words can convince someone to act, then explain to me why sales people are a vital part of many businesses. Explain why companies spend billions of dollars every year advertising. Is it that much of a stretch from those examples to convincing someone to commit a crime or kill themselves? I agree that a high standard of proof is needed, but I do think it can definitely be proven.


Of course a person can be influenced. As you say, if that weren't true, then why would marketing and commercials exist? But where does personal responsibility and free will begin? If I tell you to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, and you do, who is ultimately responsible? The greatest and most effective of advertisements can't persuade me to act against my morality or self interests. At some point a person becomes responsible for his own actions. It's what we have always come to expect from adults. Are we now a nation of children?
adele
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:03:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/8/2011
Posts: 24,248
Location: if I knew where I was then I would not be here...
JustSomeJoe wrote:
Of course a person can be influenced. As you say, if that weren't true, then why would marketing and commercials exist? But where does personal responsibility and free will begin? If I tell you to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, and you do, who is ultimately responsible? The greatest and most effective of advertisements can't persuade me to act against my morality or self interests. At some point a person becomes responsible for his own actions. It's what we have always come to expect from adults. Are we now a nation of children?

Someone who is extremely weak willed and easily influenced CAN be convinced they are worthless or no one loves them and never will, or don't deserve to live, and therefore shouldn't live. No, the vast majority of people who were told to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger aren't going to do it. At least not the first time you ask. But there will always be someone that will, if not the first time, maybe they will the third or fourth time you ask. So, while they ultimately are responsible for committing suicide, the person that encouraged them rather than having them seek help, or just leaving them be, also bear some of the responsibility. It is one thing to see someone standing on the edge of a tall building and walk away, and a totally different thing to stand there and shout "Jump!".

Read my latest story, Fun in Cabo Part 3

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/lesbian/fun-in-cabo-part-3.aspx

Another good read - Mistress Ashley Meets Her Match

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/reluctance/mistress-ashley-meets-her-match.aspx

Also, check out my Bookish Stories competition entry, Alicia Discovers Porn

https://www.lushstories.com/stories/masturbation/alicia-discovers-porn.aspx
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:20:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
It's definitely an interesting topic, that's for sure. Whether an act is the responsibility of the individual or the person/group that influenced the individual seems to be applied unevenly. For example:

-- Are the words and teachings of the Koran responsible for Islamic terrorism?
-- Were the words and actions of the #resist movement responsible for the D.C. shooting of congressmen?
-- Were the words of BLM responsible for the Dallas shooting of five police officers?
-- Were the words of the Ferguson protestors responsible for the murders of two NYC cops?
-- Who caused the church shooting in Charleston: the gunman or white supremacist hate groups?
-- Who caused the Gabby Giffords assasination attempt: the gunman or Sarah Palin?
-- Who caused the OK City bombing: Tim McVeigh or Janet Reno?

You can see how it becomes rather messy when you abdicate personal responsibility.
Just_A_Guy_You_Know
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:32:48 PM

Rank: Forum Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 6/17/2015
Posts: 979
Location: Not Nebraska, United States
JustSomeJoe wrote:
In Canada, parts of Europe, and on US college campuses, there is a push to punish anyone who uses the wrong pronouns or nouns to describe another person's gender.


JustSomeJoe wrote:
I really hate when people force me to Google for them. But here goes:


I really hate when people force me to fact-check for them. But here goes:

JustSomeJoe wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11584/oxford-university-students-use-gender-neutral-hank-berrien



Bullshit.
The Oxford Student Union denies that this happened.

JustSomeJoe wrote:
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/


Bullshit. This doesn't say anything at all about the use of gender pronouns, but states that discrimination based on gender identity or expression is protected under existing hate-speech laws in Canada. It also notes that there is a required burden of proof for criminal accusations that said speech was motivated by hate, prejudice, or hate, and constitutes an aggravating circumstance. The issue here is not the pronoun usage, but the motivation behind it. Also note that Canada, being a distinct and sovereign nation from the US has the right to enforce its own laws and customs, and is not subject to the US constitution or the 1st amendment.

JustSomeJoe wrote:
(Note the second paragraph about "propaganda", which opens the door to a wide range of prosecution against pamphlets, signage, websites, Facebook posts, etc...)


So what? You think it's acceptable to spew hate speech so long as it's in pamphlet form? What the fuck kind of argument is this?

JustSomeJoe wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dw.com/en/berlin-government-to-ban-sexist-advertising-on-billboards/a-39336264


Bullshit. Again, this has nothing to do with gender pronouns. When you googled these links, did you actually read them, or did you just post them at random? Anyway, the gist of this story is entirely in the headline. A bill was introduced, and is being debated. It doesn't say whether it's passed (many bills that are introduced in any government are modified through debate and/or die on 'the floor'). A quick google search shows no progress (i.e. no more news) on this since June, suggesting that it is sensationalist click-bait, that really didn't end up going anywhere in terms of policy. If anyone from Berlin could give us an update on this, it would be appreciated.

JustSomeJoe wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/amp/


Bullshit. To quote from the source you provided (the first fucking sentence) "Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000." Again, this is not an issue of pronoun usage, but intentional discrimination and harassment. According to the logic you've put forth, I should be able to consistently and intentionally refer to you as 'she.' - Not because you identify as female, but because I just feel like being a complete dick to you. How do you like that, little girl?

JustSomeJoe wrote:
http://www.ago.wv.gov/Documents/2017.02.24%20Trans%20letter.PDF


Bullshit. Again, not really anything to do with referring to anyone by an incorrect gender pronoun. Instead, this letter outlines a position on a debated piece of legislation - and in fact notes that Trump has rolled back regulations on the discrimination against trans individuals. This issue is far from settled, but has become something of a political football in recent years. Furthermore, Trump has not settled the issue at a federal level (in fact Betsy DeVos has been reluctant to rescind protections against LBGT youth), but deferred it to the state and school levels, which will produce inconsistent policies across the country. Thus, "As your Attorney General, I have been and remain
committed to defending our schools’ authority over their own policies." It should also be noted that this letter is not official policy. Furthermore, when you're looking for enlightened States that are leading the way on issues of social justice, West Virginia may not be at the top of that list.

JustSomeJoe wrote:
I can Google a few more for you, but what's the point?


Agreed, no point. Fact checking your bullshit for you is a total waste of my time.

Gratuitous Expletives!
JustSomeJoe
Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:51:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/13/2017
Posts: 96
@ Just A Guy: Where to begin?

-- Err, yes, it is entirely acceptable to spew hate speech. That's the entire point of free speech. You have a right to spew hate and bigotry and nonsense and anything else you'd like. It's called freedom. We fought a war over it. You may have read about it.

-- By all means, use any pronoun or insult you'd like when you refer to me. You have a right to be an asshole. Again, that's why we have the First Amendment.

-- By the way, if you force me -- by law, penalty, and/or imprisonment, at the point of a gun, to refer to you as something I know -- as a matter of scientific fact -- you are not, then who is really the asshole?

-- It's irrelevant whether any of these ideas have been passed into law. I said they're "being pushed." Read my actual words and you'll avoid confusion (and a lot of typing.)
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.