"That kind of shit" by which I mean hate-speech against groups of people on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Someone makes a dodgy joke about gay cowboys, well the world is harsh, get a helmet. Someone makes comments advocating violence against gays/queers/niggers/towelheads/Jews/etc that is unacceptable and in my view likely to make the Cellar feel like an unwelcoming place.

My point is that it is not to do with how real the threat is. Hate speech isn't defined by how likely the speaker is to carry out his voiced threats. Couching it in hypothetical terms (if I were to go postal I'd...) and calling it a joke does not stop it being hate speech. It's only a 'joke' because of the response it gets. On another forum with different response who knows where that would go.

Hate speech has no place. No fucking place whatsoever on the Cellar.

As I say, maybe Zen's right and a temporay ban is in order. Maybe JBKlyde will respond to that by not voicing such things in here again. I don't know. I just know that either he, or the hate speech has to go.

Let Unca back.
He behaved in an intolerably irritating manner but he was harmless and at least we know he reads threads. And after all it was one morning. He went on a bit of a spree.

Temp ban JBK. He stepped over the line. I disagree with everything he posts but that's not why I think he needs temp banning. If he comes back and espouses hatred again, ban him. I for one won't miss him.

Being offensive is not ban-worthy.

Here in Washington we have a law, recently upheld, to my dismay, that permits pharmacists to refuse to dispense legal medicine to someone with a legal prescription based on a moral objection. I imagine the pharmacists would say they were offended by, perhaps, the behavior or attitudes of, you know, some people. Here's why I have a problem with that AIRQUOTE standard AIRQUOTE.

One, it's utterly subjective. Even being intolerably annoying is subjective, but it is a more restrictive standard than "offensive". Do we want all offensive speech silenced? Not just ignored. Not fought against. Not refuted. Not argued into self-evident submission. Just forbidden, but just around here. I say no.

Two, that kind of rule cuts both ways, and it's *sharp*. Apparently, JBK finds *your* position offensive. When the shoe's on the other foot, there is no call for you to be kicked out. Why isn't there a call for you to be banned by the same standard "offensiveness" Is that the right response? I say no.

You said in another thread that one mitigating fact about mercy's comments was his contrition; that he "learned" about/from the offensiveness of his remarks. If teaching dwellars to be better people is the laudable, if Sisyphean goal, then banning JBK doesn't further your efforts toward that goal.

***

Dana

Rivers of hateful speech have flowed through the cellar, rivers whose headwaters are still here. I think selective banning is just a different shade of the same stupid prejudice being shown by JBK's homophobic remarks. And we absolutely *DO* make judgments about the ... importance of all kinds of remarks including hateful ones. As a student of language you know well the value of tone and context in all kinds of communication. Maybe I have been inattentive to this "kill kill kill" comments, but a quick search of the cellar returns over 45 thousand instances of "kill". That is many metric fucktons of evidence for banning. Really?

I think you and I may have a slightly different attitude to the matter of 'free speech' and 'hate speech'.

If someone on this board said: I dunno, sometimes I feel like going out and lynching a nigger - I would want that person banned. Temporarily or permanently. I do not believe anybody has the 'right' to publish something like that on a public forum. What they say to each other in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but this is a privately owned, publicly accessible forum where words are left permanently on show.

I do, however, take your point about the potential for learning. Which is why I agree that a temporary ban might be fairer.

Generally speaking there is a fairly fundamental difference in approach between America and Europe when it comes to laws on hate speech. Under American legal codes it is defined in terms of its offensiveness and capacity to cause distress to victims. This places internet communication in particular in less danger of regulation than other media (radio and television). The 'victim' must first go through several steps to access the material, therefore they have effectively sought it out and been offended by it. It hasnt intruded unsought into their life as something floating actross the radio might.

In Europe the baseline for hate speech laws is the impact they have on society more generally that underlies what is considered unacceptable.

From http://law-wss-01.law.fsu.edu/journa.../timofeeva.pdf

Now, in this case I have two immediate and instinctive responses to JBKlyde: a) that's unacceptable, you've hurt a friend, and b) that's unacceptable, that breaches my understanding of what is and is not appropriate / legal in messageboard communication and represents a wider social danger by the dissemination of hate speech.

If you silence them, the FBI/DHS internet filters can't ferret them out before they actually act.

I don't particularly give a damn one way or the other, but...

If Unca gets banned for being Unca, I think a lot of us have to be banned, because some of us have done worse than Unca or JB.

And I said "us", cuz I personally have done worse more than a few times. And some of us have been FAR FAR FAR worse than either JB or Unca, for a much longer span of time.

That said, I'm sure they're is a population of Dwellars who would like to see me go, too.

:2cents:


ETA: I've missed JB's display of 'hate speech'. If someone could/would point me to that, so I could opine for myself, I'd appreciate it. PM if you'd rather.

Also, 'Free Speech' means everybody, even the people you/we disagree with.

Now...if he's hating on fat guys w/ponytails...we're gonna have prollums.

Agreed.
No threat of violence, nor 'hate speech'
Agreed, at a minimum, at least.

Are you saying the "if I go postal I'm going to a gay pride parade and blow them all away" remark as "threats of literal violence and hate crimes"? I might have missed some others, so help me out please. If it is just this point, then I contend that JBK's statement falls very far short of a threat of literal violence OR a hate crime.

for the second point, I was responding to the clamor over the "offensiveness" of JBK's remarks and trying to illustrate the weakness, difficulty and danger of such a standard as justification for banning. "You offend me, you must be banned."--we don't want to go there.

You should look here. If there are others, others will have to point them out to both of us. Of course, JBK has plenty of other "out there" shit, but I haven't seen any that approach "hate speech", no moreso than the regular shitstorm that sometimes comes through.

As far as I am aware that was the first time it escalated from mere offensive bigotry to hate speech. Which is why this is the first time I have advocated a ban.

"QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE" Why the ƒuck hasn't JBKlyde been banned as shit, and erased from the history books? FUCK THIS GUY.

Close enough for me. And I stand by my opinion that at least a temporary ban is in order.

I've felt sorry for him, and tried to be understanding and all that, but there is a limit.

Letting someone say the things he has said, with no consequences... that isn't kind. Unacceptable things should not be accepted.