News When 'free Speech' Includes How To Rape

[Rumors]

If he leaves this country I think we should revoke his citizenship and deny him entry... If he can figure out how to get laid in various countries, he can figure out how to gain entry in to another country.... Douchebag.

 

[Anarchy]

I don't understand your question.
Do you mean a penalty for crossing the line?

That is what I meant, and your subsequent lines showed that you were thinking about it along the same lines that I was.

That social censure contains some strong sanctions (we still have a largely unrecognised customary order).

however with statutes against talk, and I appreciate that you didn't go there, but others might be tempted to, we reach the point where (highly objectionable) talk does result in actual physical violence; initiated by someone wearing a blue costume and a shiny badge, and against the person who was, however objectionably, still only talking.

once we accept the idea of talk being lawfully met by physical violence, it then only becomes a question of "Who, Whom?"

Who gets to inflict physical violence upon whom for what words.

I feel sorry for this guy. He either has a serious personality disorder and major insecurity issues, or he is a troll.

Yeah, there does seem to be a big element of narcissistic insecurity, neediness and grandiosity going on.

 

[Ed Norton]

There are major trolls all over, here's a particularly dizzy bitch.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

 

[Ellabella44]

I think its all 3 @Casey_03.

And at the same time because of the type of hate he's spreading I feel its not safe to give such a person sympathy. Especially if I was a young 20 something again.

 

[Ellabella44]

@Ed Norton wow that sounds like my women's studies professor! I was expecting a class about women in history, but most classes were about how men oppress us in every way. I'm surprised she didnt have the few men in class apologise for oppressing women the way she went on.

 

[Anarchy]

There are major trolls all over, here's a particularly...

I see what you mean. I think I'll go to make a cup of tea, rather than play cognitive distortion and logical fallacy bingo with that crap:wtf:.

A point that one of our members made elsewhere, is that the micro aggression and grievance mongers, risk diluting concepts like rape and sexual abuse, to the point where they are taken less seriously, and victims of what was in the original meaning of the concepts are more likely to be dismissed and invalidated.

I'll not embed it (too much like a hijack), have you seen Carey Wedler's youtube about "street harrasment"

 

[Friday]

we have a moral obligation to draw a line at where ones right to free speech crosses the line into inciting violence

We do have clauses allowing for laws, & have laws against "inciting riots" & "fighting words" ;

Government may prohibit the use of “fighting words,” which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response

however in anti-police politics, even people who are clearly in breech of these laws are more often than not given a pass. The laws exist, but whether or not they are enforced is a political game of the moment.

 

[Anarchy]

The laws exist, but whether or not they are enforced is a political game of the moment.

Where a monopoly operates, that is always the case. Illustrations of that are the well connected paedophiles who remained protected until long after their deaths.

In some previous systems, where offences were in the form of torts, and prosecuted by the victim and their insurance/defence group*,

rather than being "crimes against the crown or state", and prosecuted by the crown agents, who then collected any fines for themselves (this is our present system).

a victim, or insurer who could not afford to drag a powerful offender to a court, could agree to sell part or all of the expected compensation to a more powerful party (a prime historical example of sale of torts was medieval Iceland), who could prevail against the offender, for example a prince might be brought before a church court, or a bishop before a baron's or a prince's court.

Even though such systems (especially the Medievel Irish one), developed women's rights to an extent which would have seemed radical even by early 20th century standards. Talk, unless it was directly defamatory, would perhaps have been unlikely to be prosecuted between groups, but there would certainly have been strong pressure on an inflammatory gobshite to STFU, from other members of his or her insurance group.
__________________________________
*even in what would popularly be thought of as primitive societies, every individual was insured, In present day Somalia, this is organised by lineage (although it is possible to join a different insurance group), in Germanic and Anglo Saxon law, by neighbourhood, and in medieval Ireland, by people who cooked and ate together, as well as by extended family.

 

[Ronin]

Q @FridayJones if I may: What am I to make of the 'average citizen', though?

Asking for definition on that basically, if you may (and I promise I'll google meantime, just find it difficult to standardize experience in multi-ethnic & multi-national & thiis wide & widely populated countries, hence asking how the actual if provided definition for 'average' goes.)

 

[Friday]

<wry laugh> Majority rules. So depends who the majority is, as usual ;)

Spoiler: Blather

Ex) Calling someone a bitch at a PTA (parent teacher association) meeting? NOT fighting words. The norm for cattiness there is very high, and the propensity for violence very low / people tend to mind their manners -to a degree- since they're held at schools where children usually are. So the "average citizen" wouldn't expect calling someone names to lead to violence at a PTA meeting. They'd expect gasps & how dare you? & calls to order & snide catty remarks & more name calling & gossip later. So if it came to blows? The person who threw the first punch started it, regardless of what was said.

Calling someone a bitch at a bar? YES fighting words. People's tolerances are fairly low, and the propensity for violence fairly high. The 'average citizen' would expect that if you started calling someone names in a bar? A fight might ensue. Therefore the person mouthing off started it.

Trend holds elsewhere... My nigga between friends? Not fighting words. My nigger, mocking/snide/x-race? Fighting words. // Child shouting threats of harm or insults to adult? Not fighting words -except in rare cases- as the average adult would be expected to have nothing to fear from a child... But adult to adult, or adult to child? You don't have to wait for them to make good on their words, those words count as your response = self defense (to a degree).

"Average" has a few steps to it:
- bystanders (whether anyone calls the police at all & which side they for who started it they take if police do show)
- police themselves (whether they charge anyone & whom -including both-)
- jury of your peers (if it comes to trial)

So it's a very subjective law. How fair it is very much depends on who makes up the bystanders, local police, & jury.

It used to be a very *clear* law... "Them's fightin' words" making just about any fight, from bar brawl to murder "legal" as long as there were witnesses where one person identified XYZ as fighting words, and the other person agreed. Once fighting words were issued? Anything goes. The common usage of that changed somewhat after WWI & rather dramatically after WWII... Instead of justifiable cause for aggression, it switched to self defense... And over the past 50 years? What's acceptable in terms of self defense have declined at an alarming rate (IMO) So someone doesn't have to wait to act, but the level of violence needs to be commensurate with what "the average citizen" finds acceptable, which is very little. Aka less than I find acceptable ;) In the vein that everyone who drives faster than I would is a maniac, and every who drives slower than I would a moron.

So average citizen, ultimately, means who makes up your jury.

 

[Ronin]

@FridayJones Ahh, so the old mind your manners & mind your company. ;)

Thank you, that was clarifying to read.

 

[Recovery4Me]

@FridayJones Well done Professor! :tup: