Skip to main content

View Diary: Pastor Terry Jones: In Defense of a Monster (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it makes you guilty of blackmail. (0+ / 0-)

    If you make a threat as an attempt to curtail speech that in no way is expected* to produce violent acts, you're engaging in blackmail.  

    And I see you took the bait about "posing naked..." by missing the rest of the sentence "... or with their clothes on."  

    Tell me that kids are incapable of giving consent to posing with their clothes on, eh?  

    Did you know that a guy went to prison for kiddie porn for having a scrapbook made up of photos of kids he cut out of Sears catalogs?   Tell me, where's the harm in that?   Were those kids being exploited?  Were they incapable of giving consent to be photographed for the Sears catalog?  

    Sorry yo, you're rationalizing in the worst way.

    There is no rational basis, much less a compelling interest, for tolerating "speech" that predictably results in murders, any more than there is for tolerating "speech" that predictably results in child molestations.   The two situations are isomorphic.  

    ---

    *Expected: a reasonable-person test would be applied.

    •  They are not isomorphic. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, johnny wurster

      1. Taking pictures for a sexual purpose of children with their clothes on is also exploitative and violates the rights of the children. No, they cannot consent to having their pictures taken for a sexual purpose. Yes, if the pictures of clothed children are taken for a non-sexual purpose and then used for such a purpose, they are not child porn and not illegal to possess.

      2.

      Did you know that a guy went to prison for kiddie porn for having a scrapbook made up of photos of kids he cut out of Sears catalogs?

      I disbelieve this. Please cite.

      3. There are all kinds of problems with the rest of your argument. First, back to my question, that speech is "expected" by a "reasonable person" to lead to violence because I have credibly threatened to commit violence based on it. It would predictably result in a murder. Much like Jones's clowning about with the Quran lead to murders by fanatics. Is it not blackmail when the Taliban does it? If a group of American soldiers murdered people because some protesters burned the American flag, would the protesters be culpable? (Now that's isomorphic.)

      In a larger sense, the problem with "hate speech" regulations is that anything can be hate speech. Hate speech is defined by whoever is writing the laws, and experience should tell us that more, not less, language will be swept into the definition over time. This may gladden the hearts of those people on both sides of the political divide who like to regulate and control the language of others; it does not gladden mine.

      Dog wags tail, tail wags dog, they wag each other.

      by October Koan on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 10:35:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. I'd like to see the cite too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        I wouldn't be surprised if a guy who possessed child porn ALSO had such a scrapbook.  But I don't believe he was sent to jail solely for possessing the scrapbook.  Until I see a cite

      •  you can do your own research. (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry but I charge an hourly rate for digging.  

        You can believe what you like and chances are if I was willing to do free digging, you wouldn't believe it anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time.

        And your arguement about "purpose" is specious.

        Grownup has kid put on a set of clothes and takes a bunch of pictures.  

        Now you're telling me it's not exploitive if grownup is merely looking to see how the dress they've just designed looks on a ten-year-old girl, but it's exploitive if the grownup uses the picture for wank-fodder?  Now we're into thoughtcrime territory!  Wonders never cease!   Or perhaps we're into magical thinking territory where the creepy grownup's secret wankery is somehow magically transmitted back to the kid, causing her to throw up on the playground?  

        So creepy grownup #1 can go to prison for thinking evil thoughts even if they keep it to themselves, but creepy grownup #2 gets to spew their evil thoughts over a microphone and claim 1st A protection?   How convenient for creepy grownup #2!  

        The statement that "anything" can be hate speech demonstrates complete ignorance of cognitive science and psychology generally.  

        Hatred is an extreme form of animus that entails a desire to harm and has a unique, specific, and identifiable pattern of brain activity.   http://www.plosone.org/...

        It can be defined with more than enough specificity for purposes of law.  Failure to understand that point is like the failure of legislators to understand the significance of the internet.  "Oh, a bunch of tubes!"  

      •  You're right to disbelieve (0+ / 0-)
        I disbelieve this. Please cite

        A pedophile was released from prison on condition that he not have creepy shit in his apartment.  He proceeded to make said creepy collage, and was sent back to prison because he violated the terms of his probation.

        So that case has nothing to do w/ the case at bar,

        •  You don't know much about law, do you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk
          Now we're into thoughtcrime territory!

          It's called mens rea, bro, look it up. And your idea that hate speech can be identified by patterns of brain activity and "defined with more than enough specificity for purposes of law" is laughable on its face.

          Have the last word if you want it. I'd say you've done a pretty piss-poor job of (1) analogizing "hate speech" to child porn, and (2) making the case for outlawing hate speech as such and charging Terry Jones as an accessory to any crime.

          Dog wags tail, tail wags dog, they wag each other.

          by October Koan on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:01:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gah! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          Replied to the wrong comment. Totally my bad. That one should have been attached to G2Geek's reply above.

          Dog wags tail, tail wags dog, they wag each other.

          by October Koan on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 07:02:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site