Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 10:54 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

One of the most fundamental aspects is the relative presence or absence of malice in any given example.
I think most people would agree on this.
If a person can communicate their ideas without malice, then that person will probably "get a pass" on what they are saying.
But in any diplomatic exchange of ideas, one can never be completely certain about what might offend whoever it is they are speaking to.
I suppose such boundaries would have to be agreed upon prior to getting down to the nitty-gritty.
Of course intent goes a long way in determining how successfully received a speech might be.
One can usually tell from verbiage and/or tone if the intent is to threaten or harm.
Likewise, an honest and benign intent would be just as self-evident.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 11:20 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

One can usually tell from verbiage and/or tone if the intent is to threaten or harm.
Likewise, an honest and benign intent would be just as self-evident.



Another case: A conservative spokesperson urges at a rally that migrants that illegally entered the country should be rounded up by the government and deported to the countries they originated from. He doesn't call them any names other than "illegal immigrants" but he is threatening them with loss of livelihood, uprooting of their families, and removal from a country they may have been in for many years. Is that hate speech?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 4:31 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

One can usually tell from verbiage and/or tone if the intent is to threaten or harm.
Likewise, an honest and benign intent would be just as self-evident.



Another case: A conservative spokesperson urges at a rally that migrants that illegally entered the country should be rounded up by the government and deported to the countries they originated from. He doesn't call them any names other than "illegal immigrants" but he is threatening them with loss of livelihood, uprooting of their families, and removal from a country they may have been in for many years. Is that hate speech?


It may not be hate speech itself, but the intent of the speech is without any question to inflame hostilities against immigrants.
That used to be not so tolerated. The term "rounded up" has clear inflammatory, and dehumanizing intent. At crux, the issue to me, is that a lot of Americans have gotten so fat and indulgent with their 'freedoms' that the do not care who gets harmed in the process. They are aggressively nihilistic about it. Yes, you can talk conspiracy nonsense lies about how a political party kidnaps children for cult rituals, you can talk nonsense about how the covid vaccines is harmful, you can talk about how the election was 'stolen'. And, we have seen direct harm come from all of it. A lot of the nation now lives in a deluded brain soup and do deranged things like threaten election workers and librarians and hit old men with hammers in the middle of the night, school board members and teachers get death threats. Over a million people died from Covid in the US, many of them totally pointlessly because they were wrongly convinced by 'freedom of speech' that the vaccine would not save them, when, it certainly would have, Yes, we have that 'freedom' of speech, but it has become perverted and deranged in use, and it is toxic to the nation, and I suspect little better will become of this now. The toxic speech is so redolent across our land.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 4:54 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

you keep assuming “Creator” is referring to a “Christian” God.

I won’t get into the other amendments since they’re clearly not based on biblical standings.



As I noted earlier, I accept that one's "religion" may or may not have a God, a deity, a guru, or whatever. I don't assume that "Creator" refers to any person's "God" in particular and I don't believe the Framers meant it to. But obviously, by their use of the word "Creator," they believed that some supernatural force existed beyond the ken of man.

The fact that the "rights" in the Bill of Rights aren't also enumerated in the Bible (and here you are assuming a relationship with a particular religious text), doesn't mean that they don't emanate from the higher power referenced by the Founders.

Take free speech, for example. A child's speech is unbridled, until a parent or teacher tells them "Don't say that," or "You can't say that." Who gives children the initial right to say anything that enters their mind? No one. They were born with the right, "endowed by their Creator" as the Framers put it. Only later, do other people try to restrict or censor what they say. The Framers, of course, weren't concerned with the speech of children, but with the political speech of adults--and the insidiousness of the Government trying to restrict or censor what they say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edit: we agree man’s grants or takes away rights.)

No we don't agree. There are many fundamental rights that man does not grant. But only man can take away those rights.


I appreciate the clarification and our ability to be civil with the discussion.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 5:02 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

How moral is it that only the powerful get to determine what is moral when it comes to speech?


Short answer: it is not moral that only the powerful get to determine what is moral when it comes to speech.
I would normally have assumed that such a question was rhetorical, but I answered anyway.

While I'm at it, I would say that what Nuts posted above ("hateful rhetoric, cultural defamation, and other pejoratives that attack elements of people's life like race, gender, or sexual preference over choices they make ideologically") would stand as a pretty damn good definition of hate speech. Quite well said.

_________________________________________________________________________

Once upon a time, the ACLU defended neo-Nazis' right to free speech:

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf

That makes a lot of sense considering their mission statement and history of defending pretty much anyone who needs their public charity voice to support their specific First Amendment cause. Just make the check payable to ACLU, 22 East 40 Street, NY, NY 10016.


As gross as it is I think Neo Nazis and KKK have a right to walk down the street, hold hateful signs and have their little pathetic parades. In fact, at one time it was encourage because "we" knew who the potentially dangerous people were. More so, it wasn't (isn't) illegal under free speech.

Its different when you get into hate groups online because most online activity is owned by private companies and they have every right to ban "hate speech" groups. Of course they do that because (a) they don't want to end up liable for supporting hate groups, (b) advertisers back out and they lose money as a company.

I do believe I have a right to hate my politicians, billionaires, law enforcement (and other hateful/harmful people) and express that without fear of being retaliated against or imprisoned.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 5:09 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

One can usually tell from verbiage and/or tone if the intent is to threaten or harm.
Likewise, an honest and benign intent would be just as self-evident.



Another case: A conservative spokesperson urges at a rally that migrants that illegally entered the country should be rounded up by the government and deported to the countries they originated from. He doesn't call them any names other than "illegal immigrants" but he is threatening them with loss of livelihood, uprooting of their families, and removal from a country they may have been in for many years. Is that hate speech?


It may not be hate speech itself, but the intent of the speech is without any question to inflame hostilities against immigrants.
That used to be not so tolerated. The term "rounded up" has clear inflammatory, and dehumanizing intent. At crux, the issue to me, is that a lot of Americans have gotten so fat and indulgent with their 'freedoms' that the do not care who gets harmed in the process. They are aggressively nihilistic about it. Yes, you can talk conspiracy nonsense lies about how a political party kidnaps children for cult rituals, you can talk nonsense about how the covid vaccines is harmful, you can talk about how the election was 'stolen'. And, we have seen direct harm come from all of it. A lot of the nation now lives in a deluded brain soup and do deranged things like threaten election workers and librarians and hit old men with hammers in the middle of the night, school board members and teachers get death threats. Over a million people died from Covid in the US, many of them totally pointlessly because they were wrongly convinced by 'freedom of speech' that the vaccine would not save them, when, it certainly would have, Yes, we have that 'freedom' of speech, but it has become perverted and deranged in use, and it is toxic to the nation, and I suspect little better will become of this now. The toxic speech is so redolent across our land.


I thought the internet would open up the world and people would see all sides of things and discover the world is much bigger than their little bubble of existence. Instead people have taken this great opportunity to learn and grow intellectually and decided to stay in their little "online" bubble instead. While there was a lot of gross and sick misinformation and it lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths Ive also come to the conclusion you can't fix stupid.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 5:25 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 5:32 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)


I thought the internet would open up the world and people would see all sides of things and discover the world is much bigger than their little bubble of existence. Instead people have taken this great opportunity to learn and grow intellectually and decided to stay in their little "online" bubble instead. While there was a lot of gross and sick misinformation and it lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths Ive also come to the conclusion you can't fix stupid.


Yes, this "bubble" building is especially divisive, as people "surround" themselves with affirming opinions and statements and tend to block or blend out (literally and figuratively) voices and opinions of those they disagree with. These "bubble" people tend to make more "strawman" arguments, because they have listened less to the "other side" but more to a "filtered-by-peers" version of the "other side".
If you hold to an opinion about something important in life (and religion and politics tend to be just that, important in life), it is always a good idea to actively try understand the strongest and best positions opposing whatever point of view you hold, and to enter into any discussion open to the possibility that you may be wrong and the other side may be right.
Unfortunately, what you see often on the Net is people assuming the worst rather than the best about the "opposing side, and resorting to insults and attacks rather than genuine exchanges.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:06 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!

I agree with all of that but it also comes down to personal responsibility and willingness to grow into a better person.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:22 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!

I agree with all of that but it also comes down to personal responsibility and willingness to grow into a better person.


yeah, we just have a LOT of people, mostly, ironically, older citizens, that have decided that they really like being the uglier version of themselves, that they had hidden away for some years, but now it is revealed. It is, on the other hand, rather encouraging that we could have this discussion on this board without anyone seriously unraveling or having to get this locked. That is some progress. I always that it was possible, but there was a contingent here who wanted a discussion locked the second it talked about anything even in the slightest bit of a sensitive area. We have made it through this one.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:23 AM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

I had some random reactions to this discussion, with probably nothing important to add...but:

1. We are born without speech. Speech is an acquired skill and/or art.
2. If we do not acquire adequate language skills through our parents, personal interests, or educational institutions, where does that leave “freedom of speech”? Is the lack of proficiency in a given language, a lack of “freedom of speech” in that given language?
3. Was Helen Keller more “free” when she gained the ability to communicate with words?
4. Lacan has some interesting things to say about the onset of language acquisition and its impact on human development. Not that I understand Lacan, but that is one facet of his theories.

But I am rambling.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:36 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I like that John, especially point 1 and 2, contrary to the idea that we are extruded from mother creation with the gift of speech and intelligence and good taste. That view is nonsense.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 7:15 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Now we're getting into the definition of speech. According to the Supreme Court money is speech. roll eyes

I think speech is the intent to convey a message. It doesn't have to be words. It could even be silence. It could be body language, a written sign, there are many ways to convey a message. (speech)

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 7:21 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Now we're getting into the definition of speech. According to the Supreme Court money is speech. roll eyes

I think speech is the intent to convey a message. It doesn't have to be words. It could even be silence. It could be body language, a written sign, there are many ways to convey a message. (speech)


Yeah, unlimited cash contributions by corporations and wealthy people to politicians, that is what 'god' intended as 'free speech'.
luxury vacation trips donated to supreme court justices, for decades, yeah, that is probably what 'god' intended also, uh huh, sure.

It was not surprising to learn that GM and Ford have both gone back to donating money to the guy who cheered on the overthrow of democracy, as he ran like a little chicken, Josh Hawley. Bad corporate citizens, looking out only for their tax benefits, as they shaft their employees who are asking for a little piece of the enormous profits.

https://theintercept.com/2023/09/29/josh-hawley-gm-ford-donations-uaw-strike/


malarkey

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 8:36 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)


As gross as it is I think Neo Nazis and KKK have a right to walk down the street, hold hateful signs and have their little pathetic parades. In fact, at one time it was encourage because "we" knew who the potentially dangerous people were. More so, it wasn't (isn't) illegal under free speech.

Its different when you get into hate groups online because most online activity is owned by private companies and they have every right to ban "hate speech" groups. Of course they do that because (a) they don't want to end up liable for supporting hate groups, (b) advertisers back out and they lose money as a company.

I do believe I have a right to hate my politicians, billionaires, law enforcement (and other hateful/harmful people) and express that without fear of being retaliated against or imprisoned.


I agree, in fact, I believe everybody has a right to hate everybody else and express that hatred. Threats and defamation are obviously something else. It should be legal to say "I hate Jon/Jane Doe", it's not okay to say "Jon/Jane Doe murdered his/her grandfather and is an embezzling thief" unless that is actually true.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 9:18 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)


As gross as it is I think Neo Nazis and KKK have a right to walk down the street, hold hateful signs and have their little pathetic parades. In fact, at one time it was encourage because "we" knew who the potentially dangerous people were. More so, it wasn't (isn't) illegal under free speech.

Its different when you get into hate groups online because most online activity is owned by private companies and they have every right to ban "hate speech" groups. Of course they do that because (a) they don't want to end up liable for supporting hate groups, (b) advertisers back out and they lose money as a company.

I do believe I have a right to hate my politicians, billionaires, law enforcement (and other hateful/harmful people) and express that without fear of being retaliated against or imprisoned.


I agree, in fact, I believe everybody has a right to hate everybody else and express that hatred. Threats and defamation are obviously something else. It should be legal to say "I hate Jon/Jane Doe", it's not okay to say "Jon/Jane Doe murdered his/her grandfather and is an embezzling thief" unless that is actually true.


Totally agree.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 10:53 AM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Now we're getting into the definition of speech. According to the Supreme Court money is speech. roll eyes
--------------------------------------------
I think speech is the intent to convey a message. It doesn't have to be words. It could even be silence. It could be body language, a written sign, there are many ways to convey a message. (speech)



Burning the American flag is free speech. At one time it was controversial. Now, most people don't give it a second thought. (I would give a second thought before I burned some other type of flag, however. Particularly a flag that represents a protected group.)

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 5:42 PM   
 By:   eriknelson   (Member)

I remember that Caedmon records, which specializes in spoken word releases, issued titles in 16 rpm back in the day.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:19 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)


An assistant professor at State University opines that transgender women should not be competing on the university's women's swim team. He believes they are still biological males and have an unfair advantage over biological women. Is his expressed opinion "hateful" and "defamatory" against transgenders, and if so, should he be censured, have his position lowered, or even be dismissed from his position at the university?


I don't think this is hate speech, personally. Transgenderism is a very complex subject, especially for those who identify as transgender, but this topic over the athletic affiliation has become an interesting, if heated one. Ironically so because the cases are few and far between but the media attention is at its loudest currently.

That said, the State University in this roleplay is run by a board of directors appointed by a state leader, is it not? The board of directors are assumed to make governing decisions for the school, not the state. I believe that whatever their decision to be, is because they have been asked to make that decision to satisfy the faculty, students, and parents of the school itself.

 
 Posted:   Oct 2, 2023 - 6:25 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)


Another case: A conservative spokesperson urges at a rally that migrants that illegally entered the country should be rounded up by the government and deported to the countries they originated from. He doesn't call them any names other than "illegal immigrants" but he is threatening them with loss of livelihood, uprooting of their families, and removal from a country they may have been in for many years. Is that hate speech?


I also do not find this to be hate speech, but it is politically-motivated rhetoric. For many citizens, especially those given a better life because of their descendents decision to migrate to America, it can be seen as spiteful and hateful and somewhat hypocritical to the foundation of the country. Immigration is another very complex, and touchy, subject in the United States America. If you want my opinion, I think the supernatural karma of US history is very real.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.