Re: Deadliness in the deep - thank you US Navy

Dennis (Icarus) wrote: 
"Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4381c8a9$0$5447$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis (Icarus) wrote: 

<snip>

Ok, please define why that is. Also, please define what "hate speech" 

is,

under what circumstances your law would apply
I've already states why I think they're not good, but can do so again if
it'll give you time to figure out why they're needed. :-)


Why you need a lwas aginst it? Simple, just look at the damage is does
and has done.


Such as?, be specific.

You need examples of the damage done by hate speech??? What world you live in?

Note that I'lm fairly certian that there are already laws agaisnt the
"damage" but oddly, that didn't seem to stop 'em.


Reactive again.



Hate speech is communication which incites hatred. T job to come to a
precise, technically correct definition I leave to the lawmakers (that's
why they have that name).



But what incites hatred in one person, need not do so in others, even the
majority.
Heck, there are folks here in whom I've "incited hatred" - am I guilty of
"hate speech"?


Was the intention there?


And I'm sure that you learned that defining something, it terms of itself,
is not actually a definition.


<snip>

Oh yes it is. Cant really talk about laws against "hate speech" oif you
don't have a good definition.
Otherwise, give the politicos a chance, and they'll define criticism of


them

as "hate speech".
:-)

Like I said already a couple of times: it incites hatred and it's false.


So its ok it its true and incites hatred? 

If it's thrue than you don't need the hate speech to incite it.



The rest I leave up to the lawmakers. 


That can be a bad thing - you could wind up with something like
McCain-Feingold.
Also known as the incumbent protection act.

<snip>


And have you figured out a good definition of hate speech yet?
So far you seem to be defining it as "something that isn't true".

how about inciting hatred? 


Still too ambiguous. What may :incite hatred in one person, may be
meaningless to another.
Try again.


Nope


Giving up?

Nope, the intent is there. 


So your intent is to give up.

Check.

Nope, the intent to incite hatred is there.



and BTW I don't have to define it, that's what lawmakers are for...


And you plan to trust these folks when it comes to expressing ideas?

Then why even vote?


Because they can do some other things which are handy.

Like?


Lets see, national defense. 

I thought you needed the army for that.


--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply
.

Relevant Pages