What's in a user name?

Remove all ads!

Again, I said no such thing. I guess I could of typed that one up a little better. Next time I will seperate the questions into two different paragraphs. My statements were -

1 - "Even if the speech were treasonous?" That is a question for Taza, trying to understand a little more about his position...

2 - "That's some odd values you got there... " Which is a statement on how I feel about his previous comments....

 

Getting back to the original thrust of the topic, I can see how a user name could be construed as communication that advocates violence -- if I changed my username to "killallnggrs" that would be something legally actionable, IMHO, as it advocates violence against an identifiable group. But anything short of that is fair game, legally. So "Ih8nggrs" is not actionable.

Now, using a name like that is gonna get many, many people to hate you, and they will not respect you one bit. The administrators may kick you off their forum, and that's totally legal if they don't want people of that sort on their boards. Every administrator must decide where to draw that line, and HIS (or her, don't wanna be a sexist oinker!) right to free speech and control of what goes on on the boards (S)HE pays for can't be trumped by someone who ses matters differently. Such people are welcome to open their own sites.

Taza's comment interested me. When it comes to respect, I start out respecting a person when we first meet -- I give them the benefit of the doubt (somewhat similar to Michelle Pfeiffer's technique in Dangerous Minds -- every student started out with an "A" -- they just had to work to keep it!) Once someone's behaviour is such that annoys me or offends me, my respect for them goes down. Exceptional acts of decency make my respect go up beyond the original positive level.

 

I also use a version of that method. When I 1st meet someone, regardless of race, sex, size, skin color or planet of origin( here are definitely some people from Mars out there!), I treat them all warmly and with respect. You don't have to earn it with me, it comes free! But you definitely can lose it with acts and comments of selfishness and uncaring toward others. They are big for me personally. If I were to encounter someone on the boards with a name that I find offending to anything i feel deeply about, they will lose all respect with me. A username can have lots of meaning and affect on others and I would use personal guidelines in choosing the username that take these aspects into account.

 

I treat everyone with respect, but I only treat them warmly if they are attractive (I'm a pig).

 

My wife tells me I'm very handsome, but don't get any funny ideas T2. The only warm thing i'll take from you is a handshake.

 

I try to treat all people cordially, even if I've lost all respect for them, but I don't give them respect automatically. I guess you could say everyone starts with a 'C' in my book, and they can earn their way up or down.

 

Hey, hey, hey. Hold your horses there.

I didn't say I'd *vote* for the pedophilia party, nowhere near. I said I support their right to voice their opinion without punishment from the government.

Also, I by default expect people to be worthy of no respect. Usually I'm right. Blades of Vanatar decided to elaborate on one of the many reasons why this is so, with his strawman.

If I support a person's (or organization's) right to voice an opinion it doesn't automatically mean I have to agree with said opinion. Jeez.

 

Regarding respect I believe that it is mandatory and that it is a value that should be part and parcel of receiving any schooling or formal education (funny Dangerous Minds got mentioned in this thread as respect is an important theme).

If your first reaction is to disrespect everyone you're not going to get along very well with people (or the record by being respectful I mean being polite and courteous -it goes a long way in preventing hostile reactions and prompting civil responses from others).

If you think that it is ok to show no respect whatsoever to others because they haven't "earned that right" (by buying a round of drinks at the pub or by other means?) then you can't blame them for disliking you. Furthermore you will make it clear that you think you're better than others (certainly not the best way to fit in and make friends, but who am I to judge).

You can see no difference between Nazism and Greenpeace?

That undermines the whole notion of freedom of speech. People ought to be shocked by such a position. Why not a party that advocates rape then? You've made the point that freedom of speech can be abused. Pedophilia is definitely wrong and recognizing it politically can only be seen as condoning it -what would be the purpose of such an organization if not to try and advocate the "right" to abuse children?

I agree but in that context it needs to be commented upon. We're not talking about Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights movement here. Child abuse and statutory rape are considered illegal in most developed countries and if we are to advocate any change, it would be for other countries to protect children rights (ban underage marriages for a start) not for free societies to accept and recognize pedophilia as a valid political entity.

I understand that an individual may hold such views but it is unpalatable when they force those views into everyone's face.

Having a user name like WaffenSS is tantamount to having a svastika tatooed on your forehead in real life. If I have to interact with such individuals I know I'll keep those dealings to the minimum, I certainly won't end up buying them rounds at the pub in order to have the pleasure of listening to them rambling about Untermensch (literally sub-humans, i.e. non Aryans, that is particularly Jews and almost everyone else).

There are bars where skin heads go but I for one won't go to any bar that let skin heads in (before blaming me for that try and have a drink in such a place with someone who doesn't look Caucasian enough). Of course all skin heads are not Nazis but the mistrust they create is genuine enough (attitude goes a long way in antagonizing people).

Drawing lines may be arbitrary but you don't have to be a reactionary or a facist to draw a line when dealing with Nazis -and I won't even mention Nazi pedophiles.

That is what I meant above when I posted that one man's freedom should not hinder another man's freedom. Thanks for the quote by the way.

 

So you're against speech you dislike. This is not freedom of speech at all.

And you know nothing about the swastika, but that's on par for the course. You're not an isolated case either. I've found that people in general rarely deserve any respect.

... and usually I'm right.

 

My problem with this is that anything that is mandatory looses much of it's value. If you respect everyone, no one respects your respect, if that makes sense.

Ok, now I think we may be talking about two completely different things. There's a huge difference between respect and courtesy. They're two totally different things.

Again, I think we're talking about two totally different things. Also realize that there's a whole slew of spectrum between "absolute respect" and "none whatsoever".

I absolutely can, but it's an academic difference.

That whole paragraph makes no sense. How does allowing a group to speak undermine the notion of free speech? How does any particular reaction to speech have anything to do with the speakers right to speak? Lastly, how does recognizing someone else's position equate to condoning it? None of those claims make any sense to me at all.

You're confusing the value of what is said with the actual right to say it. They're two completely different variables. I'll agree a pedophelia party is a disturbing thing, and I would have no problem with locking every single one of them up, provided it was for actually breaking the law and not just that I disagree with them. I disagree with a lot of people, that doesn't mean we should lock them all up.

No one is asking you to be their BFF, just to not beat them in the street. And yes, I think that analogy to a tattoo is pretty good (not great, but good), but that doesn't change that it's their right. The very idea of a Freedom, any Freedom, is that it applies to everyone equally, at least within bounds to protect society.

But drawing arbitrary lines is the entire problem. 99% of the world agrees on pedophiles. Maybe 97% agrees on Nazism. Maybe 75% agrees on skin-heads. Maybe 65% agrees on lawyers. You see the problem? Any arbitrary line is automatically an oppression of the minority by the majority based on nothing more than relative size (i.e. the majority is bigger than the minority). That means that banning the pedophilia party is, morally, the exact same thing as banning the American Bar Association. You need a better reason than "most people say so" to oppress someone.

But the issue is where do you draw the lines? When two people's "freedoms" come into conflict, which one wins? Does one man's right to free speech, or the other's 'right' to not be offended win?

 

Caradhras: It is certainly your right to associate with whomever you please and exclude those you do not trust from your personal life. Freedom of speech does not have such restrictions. Another quote from Voltaire goes hand-in-hand with that of Holmes (and has been quoted before):

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.​

A person can say extremely hateful and disgusting things. It is only a violation if:

1. The statements are criminal. They violate obscenity laws, are slanderous, or treasonous.
2. The statements are a direct encouragement to commit a crime. Technically, this is a crime as well and so I guess there is really only one criteria (but this is an important aspect and deserves to be separate).

If I dislike the speech, I walk away. Someone advocating the reduction of the age of consent to 12 (or any specific age where the child is clearly physically immature) is certainly misguided, and I will walk away. I do not believe the speech is criminal until they advocate or encourage people to actually violate the current statutes. Wanting to change a law is not illegal.

People who are neo-nazi, white supremist, survivalist, Mormon, Catholic, Democrat, and environmentalists are allowed to state their beliefs. Speech which encourages violation of law is, in and of itself, a violation of the law -- and the person using such speech can expect to be arrested and brought to trial. This is not always a bad thing, many laws have been changed because people were willing to pay the price in order to bring a unjust law to light.

I don't like white supremists. I don't associate with them and I have no desire to listen to their rhetoric. But I will not deny their right to state their beliefs. I don't agree with religion and have no desire to go to revivals or listen to missionaries -- I have no desire to restrict their speech either.

By the way, I do put PETA and Greenpeace on par with neo-nazi's.

 

So you support someone's right to support Pedophila? Who's the strawman now?

Pedophila is the grossest of actions one can take, IMO. I can't stop anyone from thinking it or from supporting their right to support their beliefs, but I still have total disregard for those who do.

 

As far as I know the controversial pedophile party does not identify itself as such. Abusing children is a crime and advocating the abuse of children would go down as criminal in most countries. The so called pedophile party seeks to lower the age of consent to twelve or something like that. While I don't agree with that I don't see advocating a lower age of consent as something that should be criminal, it's basically a political opinion. They don't go advocating the rape or abuse of children on the streets, that would probably land the members in jail in almost any country and have their group considered a criminal organization.

Unlimited free speech is harmfull and I doubt any nation has a guarantee of full free speech. Encouraging people to criminal acts, false advertising, spreading state/corporate secrets are all cases where we all probably want to limit the free speech. Society makes it choices of values where it wants to limit free speech and how, and this changes with age. Finland had not all that many years ago laws against blasphemy, today those laws are gone. I don't have much complaints on how the law is today around here and am pretty satsified with my level of freedom in expressing myself.

 

T2, I'd disagree with you on only one point. I wouldn't walk away. I would oppose them. With my own speech. Just as they are free to state their opinions and beliefs, I am free to do the same. If I can engage them in a meaningful debate about their positions, all the better (even if only for spectators).

He supports someone else's right to advocate controvercial change in laws which he himself doesn't agree with. That's not a strawman, that's his position.

 

If that's the case, using Pedophila is a pretty tasteless example...

 

I think paedophilia is a perfect example - given it's a real-world example and something we all hopefully can agree is wrong.

 

Ok, I agree with that. Your 1st statement was a little obscure as "I saw the existence of the pedophilia political party in the Netherlands as good news." That's a scary statement, but I think I understand your meaning now, sorry Taza. To me, that's a touchy subject and will usually set me off.

 

Groups like NAMBLA and the Pedophelia Party should exist. They should also be very, very small. They are proof that freedom of speech is genuine and viable, alive and well, but they should never be much more than that.

 

So if I meet a guy with that symbol tatooed on his forehead I can rightfully assume that dude is into Eastern philosophies and probably a proponent of non violence [irony intended].

I get that some people choose to associate the svastika with its original meaning -the word svastika itself comes from the Sanskrit and there are two different versions of that symbol (only one has been used by Nazis and that's the one I'm referring to).

That being said to discard the fact that it has been used as the main symbol for Nazi ideology is either naive or hypocritical.

I'm not Jewish so I can't say how skin heads or KKK members would respond to an invitation to a bar mitzvah. I guess that would be very educational though.

If you don't mind my saying so I think you are actually reversing the roles here.

Where did you read that people should "beat them in the street"? Have you ever ran into a group of skin heads? Most of the time they're only looking for trouble. You make it sound as if they were the ones that got beaten up for no reason (other than not being Caucasian, not looking "right" or standing up for someone else).

Following that logic Nazism is either not "a real world example" or not something we "can agree is wrong". Is that statement revisionist? I sincerely hope not.

You're not naive enough to think that you can reason with them? Because if you were to try and talk some sense into them I sincerely hope you'll be lucky enough so that "spectators" will call the cops before you get beaten to death (the most probable outcome if you're outnumbered).

For your sake take my advice and should you run into that sort of people just walk away as you won't achieve anything.

 

I was using 'beating them in the street' as an extreme (though not uncommon) example of the consequences of silencing a group. If you wish to make their speech illegal, what exactly do you expect?

No, I think that logic dictates tat Nazism is also a 'perfect example', again because it's a real world example and something we can all hopefully agree is wrong.

First of all, most of those rallys are teaming with cops anyway. Second of all, I don't intend to walk up to them and say "****** *** ****** * *** ***** *****, you mother****ers!" I intend to walk up to them and say "Now, why do you believe this? Where's your support for your belief? I mean, if you want us to take you seriously, you should be able to back that up, right? I know I certainly would if I were trying to convince anyone of something." If they do attack me for that, well, I can take care of myself pretty well.

And also, no, I don't think I'll influence any of them, but I do hope I can ameliorate their influence on others.