On Freedom of Speech, Rush and the Turkish viewpoint

[Doktor Howl]

oh, yea.  the impassioned killer, i can see that.

i was just thinking about the mugger.  i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion.  as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me.  (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)

Or the drunk killer.

Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck.  Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute.  Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted.    And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew.  Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.

Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.

[Elder Iptuous]

i concur.  magical disappearance of all guns would certainly not make killing go away.  (we are, after all, apes)
but, when some anti gunners makes the claim that getting rid of all guns would make killing go down, i hear rights advocates start saying that killers would simply use courser methods of killing.  i think this argument is the primrose path because it's not practical to think we could get rid of all guns.  but dabbling down that path just a bit, i could see how it could reduce some homicide for the reasons i mentioned.  so the discussion is a quagmire that should be avoided.  (i'm doing a bangup job of that, eh? )

[Triple Zero]

Therefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.

I thought that was the assumption this thread started out with, anyway?

The question was whether it's a good idea to limit freedom of speech under certain circumstances. And indeed limited freedom of speech is of course not freedom of speech.

BTW in the Netherlands, we're not allowed to publically deny the Holocaust happened.

Also, on hate speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Netherlands

Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[29]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[30]

Apparently we're allowed to incite hatred against furries, though.

(until the new DSM classifies it as a mental disability, at least)

[Triple Zero]

In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.

I believe that we have some of those exemptions as well, but I'm not exactly sure or clear on what they are.

Good thing the British protect Freedom of Mockery and Biting Wit

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.

[Elder Iptuous]

That is an argument that has more meat to it, but it seems that it is more an accusation of negligence on the part of a firearm owner rather than the inherent danger of firearm ownership.
Accidents happen in many ways with many items, yet firearms seem to get a disproportionate amount of impassioned ire.  It seems to me that this hoplophobia can result in people believing irrational notions such as significant reduction in homicide if only we were able to remove guns from the world.  (I've heard the claim not infrequently, myself)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

I'm one of those wacky Socialists who thinks that if we solved the social problems that cause most blue-collar crime, the licensing of guns would be largely a non-issue.

Anyway, on what are you basing your assertion that it "works so well" there? Have you researched it? Because if you're basing it on "well I haven't seen any problems"... you might just not be seeing the problems. Because of censorship.

http://crowdvoice.org/freedom-of-speech-in-turkey

http://www.wittyworld.com/countries/turkey.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jody-sabral/turkeys-censorship-puzzle_b_1232562.html

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/01/turkey-press-freedom-ece-temelkuran/

Huh. Those appear to be some problems.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide

Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.

Really, really seriously.

[Don Coyote]

One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.

You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?

No I've been reading as much history on the country I'm living in. The link posted above actually covers the issues I mentioned:

What happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to considerable dispute.

The mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter, and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks on Armenians who reached Syria — and Armenians living in Istanbul and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

Turks don't dispute the war, or the deaths... they only dispute the term genocide.

Uh, this shit is getting crazy in here. Wow.

[Doktor Howl]

One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.

You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

Wow.  You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?

[Don Coyote]

One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.

You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

Wow.  You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?

If I did it was unintentional.

[Doktor Howl]

One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.

You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

Wow.  You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?

If I did it was unintentional.

I'd have just stuck with "small children drink bleach more often than they kill themselves with firearms."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

oh, yea.  the impassioned killer, i can see that.

i was just thinking about the mugger.  i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion.  as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me.  (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)

Or the drunk killer.

Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck.  Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute.  Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted.    And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew.  Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.

Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.

I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?

It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.

[Doktor Howl]

oh, yea.  the impassioned killer, i can see that.

i was just thinking about the mugger.  i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion.  as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me.  (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)

Or the drunk killer.

Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck.  Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute.  Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted.    And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew.  Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.

Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.

I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?

It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.

But if you ask loud enough, you can become a statistic.   

Good Lord, I've become a cynical bastard.

But maybe not cynical enough.