The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[HoreTore]

You can state that you think that they screwed some Nazi hookers. That would be an opinion. If you flat out state that they screwed Nazi hookers while they didn't, that'll open you up for a libel lawsuit.

Indeed, and libel is America's way of "censoring free speech". Libel and hate speech lawsare founded on the exact same reasoning, the only difference between the two is that the former is for individuals while the latter is for groups.

Defending one while calling the other horrible sounds strange, to put it nicely.

Do we have to drag out that story about the food critic who was sued for a bad review which was posted here some time ago?

[rvg]

Defending one while calling the other horrible sounds strange, to put it nicely.

Not at all. Libel law is not the tool of a government. It's there for an individual or an organization to protect themselves against false accusations. If you start publicly saying that I am screwing Nazi prostitutes, the government won't lift a finger to stop you. Neither will anyone else other than myself. I might (and most likely will) choose to do so, and in doing that I will be protecting my personal reputation from lies. I see nothing wrong with this picture.

[Ironside]

So it says...
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime."

This applies to the US? I've been seeing the links earlier, this has totally not with my question. And it's totally not what is the idea behind the hate speech laws.

[rvg]

This applies to the US? I've been seeing the links earlier, this has totally not with my question. And it's totally not what is the idea behind the hate speech laws.

This is a wikipedia definition of Free Speech as provided by Viking.

[HoreTore]

Outsourcing the issue from the government to the civil system doesn't change a thing. Heck, Mill argues that civil oppression is worse than government opression.

It is not the form of the punisher that is the issue here, the issue is what is allowed to come out of ones mouth. In public.

And as I noted in an earlier post, you now gave a defence for libel that is exactly the same as a defence for hatespeech.

A final question though; if hatespeech was controlled through the civil justice system, would it then be OK?

[rvg]

Outsourcing the issue from the government to the civil system doesn't change a thing. Heck, Mill argues that civil oppression is worse than government opression. It is not the form of the punisher that is the issue here, the issue is what is allowed to come out of ones mouth. In public.

If you tell lies about me I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten my life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins.

[HoreTore]

If you tell lies about me I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten my life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins.

Swap "me" with "my group" and you have the exaxt defence of hatespeech laws. To the letter.

[rvg]

Swap "me" with "my group" and you have the exaxt defence of hatespeech laws. To the letter.

"Your group" is not an individual. Libel and slander laws protect only individuals and organizations.

[Viking]

So remaining silent is your substitute for free speech?

Nope.

Not a single one of these exceptions involves opinions.

Opinions containing obscenity are verboten, so are opinions containing "fighting words".

[rvg]

Opinions containing obscenity are verboten, so are opinions containing "fighting words".

Nonsense. They are allowed.

[HoreTore]

"Your group" is not an individual. Libel and slander laws protect only individuals and organizations.

Uhm, yes. That be tha point, yarr. I'll repeat it for you. Bolded as a bonus:

Libel laws and hatespeech laws are defended by the same reasoning, the only difference that the former argues for individuals, while the latter argues for groups.

Now, I don't support either, so I'm fine. What intrigues me is how it is possible to support one but not the either. Given that there is no difference whatsoever in the argument defending them, I would think that you either have to support both or none at all. How can someone support only one? Is it logical shortcuts? Tradition? Habit? Blind parroting of what one is learned by society? What?

[HoreTore]

"If you tell lies about jews I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten jewish life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins."

Rvg's argument for libel, turned into a argument for hatespeech, with Jews being used as the example.

It's the exact same thing. I didn't even have to change a comma to make it fit, juet the word "me".

[Whacker]

In the US, hate speech is perfectly legal, provided it does not violate the sanctions against libel and defamation, or inciting others to riot or violence. This is a core concept in the idea of the "free marketplace of ideas", and the tenant that no opinion, however misinformed or misguided, should ever be wrong.

Defamation is as rvg said, a direct threat to someone's character, reputation, and thus livelihood. I could get up in public and state that rvg is a big meanie and I think he posts on the forums in a less than stellar manner. These are my own personal opinion (not really, just an example) and do not portray themselves as anything more than such. If I were to stand up in public and state that rvg is a deviant sadomasochist who likes screwing transsexual nazi hookers while snorting coke off a crying homeless orphan's butt, that's a completely different story and he has every right to sue the pants off of me. There's a reason this isn't protected speech. Likewise with incitement to riot or "fighting words", or shouting "fire" in a crowded room. These things are by definition dangerous and constitute direct threats to individuals or groups of people's lives.

[Whacker]

"If you tell lies about jews I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten jewish life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins."

Rvg's argument for libel, turned into a argument for hatespeech, with Jews being used as the example.

It's the exact same thing. I didn't even have to change a comma to make it fit, juet the word "me".

No it's not. Libel and slander are specific attacks against a specific person or business/organizational entity. "Jews" are a ubiquitous, widespread, arguably (un)defined conceptualization of a subset of humanity. In the US, you could certainly stand up and state you hate jews and think they should all be deported, that they spell bad, look funny, have big noses, and are stingy with their money. You could say that all day long as much as you want. Of course you'd be roundly denounced as an antisemite and a fool, but that's what you'd reap for what you've sown.

[rvg]

Now, I don't support either, so I'm fine. What intrigues me is how it is possible to support one but not the either. Given that there is no difference whatsoever in the argument defending them, I would think that you either have to support both or none at all. How can someone support only one? Is it logical shortcuts? Tradition? Habit? Blind parroting of what one is learned by society? What?

It seems obvious to me: slander against groups does not target anyone specifically. Since nobody specifically is targetted, nobody specifically can bring up the libel charges.

For example I can publicly say: "Catholic priests are lying, swindling, child-molesting crooks". That will be protected under 1st Amendment.
If I publicly say: "Father Thomas is a lying, swindling, child-molesting crook", then Father Thomas (and only Father Thomas) will be entitled to sue me.

I can't defame individuals. Defaming groups is okay.

[HoreTore]

No it's not. Libel and slander are specific attacks against a specific person or business/organizational entity. "Jews" are a ubiquitous, widespread, arguably (un)defined conceptualization of a subset of humanity. In the US, you could certainly stand up and state you hate jews and think they should all be deported, that they spell bad, look funny, have big noses, and are stingy with their money. You could say that all day long as much as you want. Of course you'd be roundly denounced as an antisemite and a fool, but that's what you'd reap for what you've sown.

Oh dear. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Libel refers to individuals, while hatespeech laws has the same argument but directed at groups.

[HoreTore]

It seems obvious to me: slander against groups does not target anyone specifically. Since nobody specifically is targetted, nobody specifically can bring up the libel charges.

For example I can publicly say: "Catholic priests are lying, swindling, child-molesting crooks". That will be protected under 1st Amendment.
If I publicly say: "Father Thomas is a lying, swindling, child-molesting crook", then Father Thomas (and only Father Thomas) will be entitled to sue me.

I can't defame individuals. Defaming groups is okay.

I see no reason not to allow both of those statements. To me, both are perfectly fine. But I do see the logic in the argument that they should both be disallowed, even though I oppose it. I do, however, not in any way see the logic in allowing one but not the other. Sorry.



And as for calling one "no free speech" while hailing the other as a shining light of liberty just sounds chauvinist. Like Stalin, really.

[Viking]

Nonsense. They are allowed.

Nope, see my reference.

"Jews" are a ubiquitous, widespread, arguably (un)defined conceptualization of a subset of humanity.

Yet for many, there is no doubt that they are included in the concept.

[HoreTore]

Does anyone remember the thread here a while back about the food critic who got sued for a bad review and lost?

All hail American Free Speech!!!

A shining example of a speech limitation which happened in the US but won't ever happen here(we fix our problems using the government, not a civil justice system).

[rvg]

Nope, see my reference.

I don't need your reference. All you need is to watch one episode of Real Time with Bill Maher to know that I'm right.

[Whacker]

Oh dear. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Libel refers to individuals, while hatespeech laws has the same argument but directed at groups.

Here's some education for you broski. Bolding crap doesn't make you correct, it just makes you look a bit more silly while proving you don't understand the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

edit -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...defamation_law

[HoreTore]

Here's some education for you broski. Bolding crap doesn't make you correct, it just makes you look a bit more silly while proving you don't understand the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

edit -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...defamation_law

I am well aware of what libel is, Whacker, hence why I made my original statement. Are you perhaps confused about what hatespeech laws are like in europe? Or the philosophical concept of it ? Or perhaps the way I use the word "group"?

[Whacker]

I am well aware of what libel is, Whacker, hence why I made my original statement. Are you perhaps confused about what hatespeech laws are like in europe? Or the philosophical concept of it ? Or perhaps the way I use the word "group"?

I have little idea of how hate speech laws work in Europe. From what I see, some of it I think is ridiculous carryover from WWII, such as disallowing holocaust denial, display of Nazi paraphernalia, and the like. As much as I detest the idea of those actions and concepts, making them illegal is silly. My response was directed at your statement "Libel refers to individuals, while hatespeech laws has the same argument but directed at groups." This is not correct, libel can be directed at other entities besides individual persons. Likewise, the definition of "hate speech" specifies that it also can be directed at individuals, groups of individuals, institutions, or other entities. The wiki entry for Norway links to here: http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-017.html . Since I don't speak Møøselanguage, I can't tell if the exact legal wording specifies individuals as well as groups, as you say. In general though, that is what those terms mean, hence my response to you.

[HoreTore]

When I said individuals, I referred to things like George Bush alone, the Bush family as a whole, Big Oil Company #2 etc etc.

When I said groups, I reffered to larger groups like jews, gays, christians, etc.

You are of course right that hatespeec laws are a remnant from an earlier time, though you poointed at the wrong era, at least in our case(I don't know german pre-ww2 law, so can't comment on them). The time in question would be the 1800's and early 1900's. About 50% av the section you linked to is from that time, and most of them are sleeping laws, ie. laws which won't be used, but for some reason remain as law. There are also other laws which conflict with this section, of course.

[Whacker]

When I said individuals, I referred to things like George Bush alone, the Bush family as a whole, Big Oil Company #2 etc etc.

When I said groups, I reffered to larger groups like jews, gays, christians, etc.

Hence a misunderstanding then. For the record, it's not incorrect to refer to a family as a singular unit, or a business as a singular entity, but that's not how we'd generally make reference to those in spoken or written word. The Bush family is a group of individuals. Big Oil Company #2 employs lots of individuals. In short, "individual" used as a noun refers to a single person, not a family unit, or business entity, or something like that. If you use that word in that context with native english speakers, you're going to get some confusion and misunderstandings, so be forewarned.

[Sigurd]

Supernova create star systems. Without supernova there wouldn't be the heavy elements that the earth and other inner planets are made of.Just a fun science fact for todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. -end jingle plays-

hehe..
Not to detract from the main discussion, but doesn't this beg the question? since a supernova is a star and as such a part of a star system, is it then true for all star systems that they were "moved" by a supernova? Cause - effect chain regress leads to the first supernova and then --- what? BB?

[HoreTore]

Before the trial, I had a firm belief that he was not insane.

As the trial progresses, I'm starting to lean towards insane.

He clearly has a number of personality disorders, the question is how much they control his actions, and where the line goes between sane and insane in a legal sense.

[rvg]

Before the trial, I had a firm belief that he was not insane.

As the trial progresses, I'm starting to lean towards insane.

He clearly has a number of personality disorders, the question is how much they control his actions, and where the line goes between sane and insane in a legal sense.

Or he is just really-really evil. It takes a special kind of guy to go and shoot dozens of children.

[Viking]

I don't need your reference. All you need is to watch one episode of Real Time with Bill Maher to know that I'm right.

If you don't know the relevant definition of 'obscenity', it's kind of hard to bring up relevant anecdotal evidence (it's not quite what you think it is). This is also verboten:

Similarly, the government may proscribe “‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Here the Court was referring to utterances that constitute “epithets or personal abuse” that “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas,” as opposed to, for example, flag burning, which is discussed below, under “Symbolic Speech.”

This means that under certain conditions, you have to keep particular opinions for yourself.

The lower courts have had a difficult time determining whether certain epithets constitute “fighting words.” At the very least, they have reached maddeningly inconsistent results. Consider the following situations in which offensive statements were found not to constitute fighting words:

Calling a police officer a “son of a *****” (Johnson v. Campbell, 3rd Circuit, 2003).
Yelling “**** you all” to a police officer and security personnel at a nightclub (Cornelius v. Brubaker, Minnesota District Court, 2003).
Telling a police officer: “I’m tired of this God damned police sticking their nose in **** that doesn’t even involve them” (Brendle v. City of Houston, Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi, 2000).
Telling a security officer “This is ********” when rousted from a parking lot (U.S. v. McDermott, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1997).

However, other courts have determined that the expressions in the following situations were fighting words:
Flashing a sexually suggestive sign repeatedly to a young woman driving a car (State v. Hubbard, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2001).
Yelling racial slurs at two African-American woman (In re John M., Arizona Court of Appeals, 2001).
Repeatedly yelling the words “whore,” “harlot” and “Jezebel” at a nude woman on the beach (Wisconsin v. Ovadal, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2003).
Calling a police officer a “white, racist mother****” and wishing his mother would die (State v. Clay, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1999).
Calling a police officer a “**** ****” in a loud voice and attempting to spit on the officer (State v. York, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 1999).

Check this link for the exact quotes

[Whacker]

Calling a police officer a “son of a *****” (Johnson v. Campbell, 3rd Circuit, 2003)

This one seems a bit of an oddity, as it's a direct personal statement, as are the other ones in the "fighting words" list. Spitting is a universally accepted example of physical assault, same as punching someone.