Thought for the Day

[blackchubby38]

I agree with this, but would ask if, in US law, any action can be taken if harm is caused from public statements, be it harm of a temporary nature, or even death. I assume intent would have to proven, that the speech act which caused it might not itself be the causal factor if the person making it can plausibly claim they meant no harm. Given the ease of transmission of Covid in 2020 and 2021, it seems a flimsy argument when multiple 'gatherings' in the US and elsewhere resulted in infection at great emotional and financial cost to the victims. From Murdoch's point of view, all publicity is good publicity if it gets people clicking, and the more outrageous it is, so much the better. But doesn't that mean his culture of vugarity and lies is creating the permissive envronment in which potentially harmful speech can take place? The Germans, for example, have laws that prohibit speech acts and other public acts which defend or promote National Socialism, and for good reason.

I guess the law is the pivot, and that it is hard to prosecute -did Trump's speech on Jan 6th encourage citizens to attack and invade the Capitol building with the seditious intention of halting the certification of the election? The language is sufficiently vague to make prosecution hard, even though the intent to stop the work of Congress was established almost as soon as the results were first announced and rejected by Trump in November 2020. And his entire campaign against that election has caused harm, including death and suicide -and even if it can't be proven in Court, I think the court of public opinion, other than a minority of fanatics, holds Trump responsible.

I still believe in the clear and present danger precedent set by the Supreme Court when it comes to free speech. If the words, whether they're in the press, in a speech, or on a social media platform can lead to/leads to imminent death, serious physical harm and/or destruction of private/public property, than I have no problems about censoring a person and possibly holding them accountable in a court of law if the intent can proven.

[Stavros]

Two thoughts in response-
1) I think the problem, and it is not just one for the US legal system but ours too, is proving that a speech act has caused harm, particularly if this is emotional harm rather than, say, a physical injury. The UK, for example, has laws that limit what can be said about the Monarchy in public. Laws on Hate Crime are controversial, and we are currently agonising over comments made by Police officers about women, including during investigations some of which are derogatory to the point of being obscene by most definitions -but are such acts illegal?
https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-...e-you-22943239

Is beng offended the same as being harmed?

2) What puzzles me at first with people like Rogan, is why they query immunology when it is presented to them by professionals who have dedicated their lives to it -not the system so much as the message, and its recommendations of this drug rather than the other one. After all, how can Rogan know if Pfizer is more or less effective than Ivermectin?

It only makes sense if one sees it as politics trumping science, just as if the US Govt says the country is under threat from X, Rogan and people like him would query it and say, maybe it's Y. Being sceptical of Government is a good thing, but it doesn't mean everything politicians say has a hidden agenda and is a cover-up for something that secretly benefits them. Take Trump, who now openly admits his aim all along was the deny the American people the right to vote him out of office by halting that part of the process which confirmed Biden as President. No conspiracy here, an open attack on democracy -but something he announced way back in 2016.

It could be ignorance or a deliberate choice, but it doesn't take much effort to find simple explanations of vaccines and immunlogy as they have been developed over the years, so I find this vaccine controversy exposes its doubters as frankly plain stupid -and stupid enough to endanger the lives of others, and that is unacceptable, and plain wrong.

This brief overview should help the doubters (not much in evidence here, thankfully) -but note the comment on Measles ought to be tempered with caution as the danger of a resurgence is possible if more children are not vaccinated against it.

https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/v...ry-vaccination

This is a bit more technical but is also a useful summary
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151719/

[filghy2]

2) What puzzles me at first with people like Rogan, is why they query immunology when it is presented to them by professionals who have dedicated their lives to it -not the system so much as the message, and its recommendations of this drug rather than the other one. After all, how can Rogan know if Pfizer is more or less effective than Ivermectin?

It's the alignment of financial incentives, ego and (anti-government) political inclinations. This guy is making big money ($100 million from Spotify) by appealing to a certain audience segment. Would anyone be interested in him if he was agreeing with the scientific consensus? As the old saying goes, it's hard to convince a person of something when their income depends on not believing it.

[Stavros]

Someone help me understand this -'Don't Say the Gay' -in Florida? Isn't Florida one of the Gayest States in the Union? I have never been there, but it strikes me that this latest Repubican ruse is, shall we say, 'Misplaced'?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-desantis.html

[Stavros]

A new twist in the UK on the issues of Free speech, where it is not so much harm to others that is at issue, but the definition of 'Hate Speech', the law, and an attempt to use it to criminalize speech acts.

The issue has arisen because of a line in 'Comedian' (don't be fooled, he is just an ignorant little prick) Jimmy Carr's act, which you can read in the link, I don't intend to repeat it here.

Nadine Dorries, who as is recorded in the link, in 2017 tweeted “leftwing snowflakes are killing comedy”, is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and in response to Carr's 'joke' has said “We are looking at legislation via the media bill, which would bring into scope those comments from other video-on-demand streaming outlets like Netflix.”

I doubt most non-UK people here have heard of either Jimmy Carr, or Nadine Dorries -who once absconded from her job as an MP to take part in a game-show called I'm a Celebrity -Get Me Out of Here! I would struggle to define Carr as left-wing, if he has any politics it appears to be sexual politics of the kind that would dive Kate Millet barmy; he is just not funny, as his tv shows demonstrate with miserable regularity, for which, like so many people on TV these days, he is paid a fortune (and for some time in an offshore account too).

But I think the route to law Dorries -a devoted servant of Boris- is taking, is a dangerous one. The real question is why Carr or anyone else thinks the Holocaust can be mined for jokes, and while this is not new, it doesn't make it any more acceptable. But to criminalize other peope's ignorance and stupidity is itself pretty stupid, and where does one draw the line about what is or is not acceptable in the public domain? Hate speech might become part of the vernacular, but for whom? Carr's routine is not going to harm anyone more than himself, but even with a 'trigger warning' before his show, what does he think is prime material for his routine?

And is it not curious how this Government, which has trumpeted Brexit as a new era of freedom, reducing the presence of the State in our lives, is extending it, or proposing to extent it into our living rooms, and in a sense, our thoughts too?

You can read the details here-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...immy-carr-joke

[Stavros]

If Jan 6th was 'Legitimate Discourse', does that mean 'Hang Mike Pence' was not an illegal incitement to murder?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

If Jan 6th was 'Legitimate Discourse', does that mean 'Hang Mike Pence' was not an illegal incitement to murder?

The Republican National Committee is full of shit when they said that the Insurrection on Wednesday January 6th 2021 was legitimate discourse,which it wasn't. It was an attempted coup by the Domestic Terrorist Leader, his enablers in congress and senate and his delusional supporters to overthrow the government and change the results of the 2020 Presidental Election. And Trump Supporters chanting Hang Mike Pence is an illegal incitement to murder.

[broncofan]

It's the alignment of financial incentives, ego and (anti-government) political inclinations. This guy is making big money ($100 million from Spotify) by appealing to a certain audience segment. Would anyone be interested in him if he was agreeing with the scientific consensus? As the old saying goes, it's hard to convince a person of something when their income depends on not believing it.

Because I have watched MMA for about 10 years I am very familiar with Joe Rogan. I even listened to an occasional podcast interview when he would have a respectable guest on (read: not Gavin McInnes or Charles Johnson or someone of that ilk). He is someone who is able to listen to absurd views and rational views and not discriminate between them. In other words he's a moron who some people think is bright. He knows a lot about martial arts but I've heard him say really stupid things even about a subject he knows a lot about. I could give examples but it's not the main point.

The things he's done that are controversial involve lots of casual racism, lots of providing platforms for racists while not having the moral backbone to even push back against their views, and generalized covid stupidity syndrome. The first tweet on his timeline is an example of his stupidity. It is a tweet using an op-ed about the potential for psychotropics to improve public morality to try to make people believe there is an active conspiracy by the government to brainwash people and take away their freedom.

I don't support the criminalization of racism or making stupid public pronouncements even if their less proximate consequences are very harmful. I just don't think people should want to interact with him because he's loathsome. But what does this mean? It doesn't mean he can't get loans or is in some way disenfranchised. It would simply mean that he is no longer a personality that companies can build their brands around and have broad-based support. He can be a niche figure but there is no entitlement to large platforms, large contracts, or public support.

[Stavros]

The things he's done that are controversial involve lots of casual racism, lots of providing platforms for racists while not having the moral backbone to even push back against their views, and generalized covid stupidity syndrome. The first tweet on his timeline is an example of his stupidity. It is a tweet using an op-ed about the potential for psychotropics to improve public morality to try to make people believe there is an active conspiracy by the government to brainwash people and take away their freedom.

This is the kind of thinking that puzzles me, along with the claims made by those currently enforcing the 'Siege of Ottawa' against the wishes of the people who live there.

First, one wonders if they know what freedom is, when they are blaring their horns all day and most of the night. If they tried this in China or Moscow, they would be in a prison van within five minutes. If they tried it in Damascus, they would be in a van, then prison for maybe six months, and for some, this might be the start of torture, and the end of their lives. I understand that things are relative, but even in Canada, there is no assault on anyone's freedom through the vaccine mandate, given that most of Canada's population has now been vaccinated, and truckers too -I think something like 90% of them. This is a co-ordinated campaign by some Canadians and some, perhaps a lot of Americans who have tired of Democracy and want something more direct, which, without any irony, would mean the kind of Government against which they are protesting.

Lastly, what in fact is the problem wth the State? When Hobbes pubished Leviathan in 1651, it was in the aftermath of a bloody civil war where, again, issues of 'freedom' were supposedly a key demand. What Hobbes did was propose a State of Nature be replaced with a State of Government; a lawless state shaped by human emotions, replaced with an organized State shaped by Reason. One could also argue it was Reason replacing Faith, and that though Hobbes was not allowed to say it, there should be a separation of the State from Religion.

The citizen thus trades a degree of personal liberty for the protection of the State, and yes, this has led the State using taxation and government central and local, to extend its reach -but does this mean Government and the State is inherently wicked, and permanently seeking ways to 'control' the people?

The same people today who support Trump, have attacked previous and current Republicans, as if those 'Rinos' were Big Government advocates when they are not. And the State, more perhaps in Europe than the US, does provide services which we, the people want them to.

Fringe theories have become mainstream because it pays to generate clicks out of idle curiosity for most people, but which then engages some in the conviction that we are all being had. Yet in the UK this last month, the people have been made to look like fools by the very powers we are told by some seek to control us -it is Boris Johnson who has lost control of the agenda, and undermined public trust with the revelation there was one rule for us, another for them. No conspiracy here, just managerial incompetence.

When you look at the idiots in Ottawa, read the praise from people such as Trump and Rafael Cruz, you wonder why people support the very people who had power, then lost it, whose policies have led to more deaths and suffering than was necessary during this pandemic, and whose opposition to the flawed political systems we have, would replace it with something worse. They are banning books in schools, not extending the people's right to read what they choose -as schoolchildren themselves want to choose-just as they are controlling women's bodies in States like Texas where Rapists Have Rights should be the Lone Star Motto.

But I guess these people will only truly cherish their freedom when they have lost it.

Leave Canada alone! It has enough problems to deal with.

[filghy2]

He is someone who is able to listen to absurd views and rational views and not discriminate between them. In other words he's a moron who some people think is bright.

This is the key point. His defenders would say that he is just questioning accepted wisdom and that's healthy because accepted wisdom is sometimes wrong. The problem is that it's a meaningless exercise without some criteria for determining truth. Rejecting all accepted wisdom because it comes from "the establishment" is not scepticism; it is nihilism. When people like Galileo challenged the accepted wisdom of their time they didn't do so by rejecting science, but by demonstrating that their alternative views were better science.