Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #1930827

Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/06/2015 15:51, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 11:15:03 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 22/06/2015 18:01, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 16:53:41 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>> On 18/06/2015 12:07, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 18 June 2015 08:51:06 UTC+1, hypatiab7  wrote:
>>>>>> This is an aa thread for atheists only, as per all the alt.atheism FAQs.
>>>>>> Lurker atheists are welcome. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's
>>>>>> hard, since they deliberately ask upsetting questions or lie about us,
>>>>>> but please try. I'm trying, too, and it ain't easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #16. How would you draw the line between the rights of an individual vs.
>>>>>> society's right to make restrictive laws?
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of quantifiable harm. The harm prevented by a law must demonstrably exceed the harm done by enforcing it. (And enforcing criminal law is always doing harm).
>>>>
>>>> That does not clarify matters much.
>>>
>>> But it does provide a general framework.
>>>
>>>> Harm is often hugely subjective and determined by the individual.  Take
>>>> free speech: a joke about Jews or blacks may be ethnic assertiveness,
>>>> racist cant or just observational humour -- it all depends on the
>>>> listener.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think most would agree that no-one has a legal right not to be offended, or disgusted.
>>
>> That depends.
>> In certain jurisdictions, the pendulum has swung so far that exactly
>> this is being enshrined in law or policy.
>
> We were discussing how I think things should be, rather than how they are. I'm not easy to convince that censorship, even of stuff I detest, is ever justified.

Nor should one be easy to convince.

That said, I do feel that the current approach which protects any and 
all forms of free speech unless they fall foul of the "imminent danger" 
test does protect people with actively harmful intent from the 
consequences of their actions.  A peddler of hate speech may never 
actively incite someone to perpetrate a hate crime in the eyes of the 
law, but his speech may still create the mental conditions for such a 
crime to occur.  IOW, a radio shock jock who keeps saying "I hate 
niggers" should be culpable if a loyal listener one day goes forth and 
shoots up a black church.

But then, over here in Europe we have some rather different hands-on 
experiences of the effects of hate speech ...


>
>
>> There are now colleges in the
>> US where art exhibits or teaching material are vetted and may be removed
>> on the say-so of students who decide they feel offended.
>
> I know, and it's a dangerous example to young people.

Not just a dangerous example,IMO: it also forms their views and opinions 
which they then carry forth into the world.


>
>>
>> In sex discrimination and harassment situations, too, the decisive
>> factor is not an objective set of circumstances but the subjective
>> decision of an individual.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Political correctness" has transformed the social discourse, but political correctness is about social pressure, not about law.
>>
>> It may have started out as social pressure but it has moved well into
>> the arena of law.  Just think of affirmative action and
>> anti-discrimination legislation that has been expanded to cover ever
>> more minority or deprived social groups.  Or colleges that enshrine
>> political correctness not just in their curriculum but their campus
>> policies and regulations.
>>
>
> Now discrimination goes well beyond speech. And affirmative action isn't exactly in the same category.

Affirmative action did not start out that way, but it has grown well 
past its original intentions.

And political correctness now sees discrimination everywhere, not just 
speech.  It can lead to architects having to redesign buildings to 
redress a claimed patriarchal arrangement of toilets, or the 
gender-neutral refurbishment of traffic lights, all sorts of idiocies 
like that.


>
>>
>>>
>>> There's the classic example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema but inciting people to violence is already covered without "hate speech" laws.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, of course, there's the often contentious question of defining harm. For example not paying your taxes causes harm, but its not so easily quantified as shooting your wife.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite so.  Not paying taxes may cause harm to the state by withholding
>>>> funds the state requires to discharge its duties.  On the other hand,
>>>> the money not paid in taxes is spent or invested which then benefits
>>>> others.
>>>
>>> But it's part of human nature (primate nature actually) to detest freeloaders. Too many freeloaders and _everyone_ stops cooperating.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's more differentiated.  Yes, it is human nature to detest
>> freeloaders -- but they have to be perceived as such.  Tax evasion is a
>> good example, actually, because although it is an act which is
>> perpetrated by the majority of taxpaying citizens, it is only condemned
>> when it is done by big corporations or the extremely wealthy.  When Joe
>> Q pays his builder in cash or fiddles his tax-deductible business
>> expenses, that's something very few people condemn -- indeed, most
>> people happily admit to it and may even brag about it.
>
> Its a question of identification. If people are like you you have more natural sympathy.
>

It also goes towards the perceived legitimacy of legislation.  With 
certain laws and regulations, people simply do not accept them as 
equitable and justified.

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN   INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-23 12:15 +0200
  Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:51 -0700
    Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN   INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-24 11:13 +0200
  Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Joe Bruno <joebruno86@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:07 -0700
  Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 08:01 -0700
    Re: aa #16. HOW WOULD YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL VS. SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO MAKE RESTRICTIVE LAWS/ Joe Bruno <joebruno86@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 01:41 -0700

csiph-web