[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Should someone be jailed or fined for using a racial slur?

Do you think it's up to me to give you that answer? How exactly can I determine the damage of a racial slur? Perhaps they should be fined. How am I supposed to know as to the extent that the damage is caused by a racial slur? Obviously there's several levels of corrections that can be approached before I throw you into my gulags, Desp.

The problem is that in order to use the state to protect your particular group, your group must first become privileged. If your group is privileged then hate speech against it already won't be tolerated by virtue of that privilege.

It's a Catch-22.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Not tolerating hate speech is not the same thing as opposing free speech. It's not a dichotomy.

Oh for fuck's sake. Will you at least realize that the concept of free speech doesn't even mean anything? What good is the concept of free speech when sinister people like WBC can decry free speech abuse when others confront them and deny them access to spread hate or when liberals go and defend Chik-Fil-A for their hate speech because they shouldn't have to suffer consequences of their hate speech in any meaningful way. So yes, let's run to defend them against any REAL action. There was a wave of anti-Chik-Fil-A sentiment against their hate speech and there was a call to a boycott. Instead, what happened? Fucking conservatives AND liberals united together to defend Christian values and the concept of free speech. I mean FUCK justice.

OWS has a very lively dialogue on hate-speech and violence/violent speech.

When people bring it, the person is down twinkled until they leave. This is NOT censoring them, this is letting them know that their hate speech is not tolerated in the GA. If this model went national or international it would not be hostile to free speech, nor would it use the state to oppress those who engaged in it, rather it would force them to go elsewhere until they changed their ways.

What do you think the state is again? Force or government? Again, does force have to come from a blue uniform for it to be considered a state?

Because you seem to be advancing the idea that there can be a dictatorship of the oppressed. That's not possible.

I beg to differ. A totalitarianism of the oppressed and the proletariat is very very different in function that a totalitarianism of the proprietors and bourgeois. If for example the governing model of OWS took over the US, their organ of force would be total. Sure, you wouldn't get thrown into the gulags, but I'm sure that under an OWS regime, there would be no place where one could get away with hate speech without a meaningful popular response.

Exactly. Because the state, by it's very nature perceives speech that is dangerous to it to be a threat.

*facepalm*

The police will never be hostile to hate groups. It's not in their psychology as an institution. Why do you think the Guardian Angels came out to occupy events and supported the police against us under the guise of "protecting the community"?

Would you also be afraid of popular militias? Or a people's police?

So we don't really have freedom of speech right now. Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, and in our society the people enforcing them will always be the State and the State will never point it's guns at the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is only hostile towards the oppressed.

Holy shit.

If we had a communist revolution, it would point it's guns at the Golden Dawn, not to protect the oppressed, but to protect the new privileged.

Once again, it's a catch-22

...

The terror doesn't come from the speech, the terror comes from the violence the speech might result in. Like how Saya said that for oppression you need hate + power. You're responding to this by criminalizing the hate, while ignoring the power.

By all means... say this to Saya.

You were saying you opposed free speech. Therefore you support SOME form of State violence against those who engage in speech you disagree with. This could run the gamut from fining to gulags to execution. I think your speed is more of the "fine" capacity, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate response.

Why must the oppressed endure hate speech? Why must they even HAVE to contest with it at all?

I read the policy. It's pretty easy to ascertain it's intent which is to send the message "Hate speech will not be tolerated here". The problem is that they communicate that message inappropriately.

No they don't. You don't know what reddit is like. You read the policy and then you ignore the very fact that there are subreddits such as "jailbait" and "creepershots" that are desperately defended because "freedom of speech". And the pisser is, IT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Even if it was legislated against, we have a CULTISH cultural observance of freedom of speech. Even if the laws are in place to take shit like "jailbait" and "creepershots" down and even the hate speech seen in MRA subreddits; it doesn't change the culture that would still promote hate speech under the lofty ideal of freedom of speech. But then you'd quake in terror if somehow this observance of admitting that a subreddit opposes the freedom of speech goes beyond its nice and comfy little borders where everyone can continue with... you know, taking unwanted photographs of women in public to pornolize their image for later. The opposition to it is not due to wanting to strip people of the right to tell a truth or to know a truth if at least to borrow from what Alan was saying.

My group already won't tolerate hate speech. You're imposing an unnecessary dichotomy.

If it was me that brought up OWS, I regret bringing up OWS.