Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

If you think that's what "hate speech" should mean, then:

  1. Stop trying to blur the term by saying that identifying certain arguments as typical of SJWs is hate speech.
  2. Admit up front that it's your own hobby horse rather than implying that it's an accepted term in the US legal community.
  3. Stop trying to tie it to "hate crime" laws, because the basis for government sanction is totally different between the two.
  4. Stop trying to tie it to statements like the Anonymous Coward's comment hypothetical "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" -- which is a very individualized statement, rather than expressing hatred towards any group.

In short, don't be such a dumbass threadjacker.

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

Wrong. In the US legal system, hate speech basically isn't a thing. That doesn't stop SJWs from trying to pretend the term has specific meaning or relevance to legal matters.

Don't be misled by the way that Prof. Tsesis treats Virginia v. Black in that Politifact article. The Supreme Court treated the act in question as a true threat. A message -- spoken, written, or through an expressive act -- cannot be proscribed on the basis of being "hate speech". To be punished by the government, the message must fall into one of the recognized exceptions to the First Amendment's protections, and hate speech is not one of those.

Comment Re: Show of hands (Score 1) 256

Have you ever read the US (or foreign) antitrust laws? This kind of converted action by dominant market participants -- especially if (as seems likely) they get caught putting anything except terrorist media in the database -- is extremely easy to prosecute as illegal collusion.

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

Yes, I mentioned that two-pronged test in my first comment. It doesn't help you, because a hyperbolic threat can still be understood as a true, but not literal, threat.

On the Internet, nobody can tell you're a dog, and a lot of nonverbal clues about intent also get washed away. Without more clues to hint at the relationship or intent behind the hypothetical statement here, though, a reasonable person certainly could take it as a seriously meant threat to injure or kill.

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

Sure, but exaggerating a threat doesn't inherently make it less credible as a threat -- only as a literal statement of intended harm. You need additional context to establish that the statement was meant mostly as hyperbole. A statement that is intended as a threat is not protected by the First Amendment (see, e.g., Elonis v. United States).

Comment Re: Those who something, something (Score 1) 588

You're being daft and you're lying. Americans have argued over immigration, with much of the public against it, for basically all the major waves of immigration to the US. Chinese and other Asian immigrants on the west coast; Irish, Italian, and others on the east coast. And during that, contrary to your claim, neither "tradition" (whatever that is supposed to mean relating to immigration) nor law has been "100% open borders".

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

Do you distinguish between "hate crime" laws and "hate speech" laws? The discussion had been about the latter, but you talked only about the former.

In typical US usage, a hate crime would be something that is a crime regardless of motivation, but exacerbated by there motivation being animus against the victim based on racial, ethnic, national origin, sex, sexualized orientation, or similar factors. Hate speech usually means little more than harsh criticism than can, in some person's mind, somehow be tied to some group identity.

Comment Re: Those who something, something (Score 1) 588

Project much? The US has had varying degrees of immigration restriction over time, but it was never "100% open borders", and anti-immigrant hysteria in North America predates the US. It's quite unfounded to claim that traditional Americans must support unrestricted immigration.

Comment Re: EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 373

In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

But maybe the EU protects making statements that are meant as physical threats, and perceived as such by an objective person?

Comment Re: Those who something, something (Score 1) 588

You said that arguing for a registry of Muslims (an argument which absolutely no one has actually made) would imply that a registry of Christians would also be appropriate. It wouldn't imply that, because only one of those religions has been responsible for millions of recent deaths.

Slashdot Top Deals

Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC