Well I would have to repeat that there are limits to free speech as I have highlighted in the vid. these are generally defined by laws of harassment, intimidation, active discrimination (i.e where it actually causes an illegal infringement of a persons rights) and incitement to criminal action etc. One would hope that the authority is limited in its power to suppress free speech as is guaranteed for instance by the American constitution and this is something that needs to be defended
I personally class that as hateful speech as I define in the video.However my personal opinion on the talking points of the churches on prop 8 were that they clearly misrepresented the nature of the issue. With it's purpose being to limit the rights of others, it could be SEEN to be hate speech, but I don't quite agree that it is, despite my vigorous disagreement with the stance. There are many grey areas in that one. tbc....
As for who gets to choose, well that's down to the law. The Idea of any 'unbiased' arbitrator of speech is a fallacy anyway so don't struggle with that unduly. By our nature, and by extension the nature of the law, we are subject to social bias, I am, You are, there's nothing we can really do about it other than try to look at the net effect of our decisions and try to be fair and this for me is where you have to weigh the demonstrable impact of ones rights and opinions against another persons.
I cant say I've ever seen a significant example of that, maybe you can provide an example. In my experience that tends to be more of a right wing stance (fox news is a prime example as are some religious organizations). My own opinion is you can state your point of view with the proviso's I lay out in the video and it in turn is open to criticism. BTW I'm not a leftist just so you know
Prop8 8 was about changing the law, not violating it so no theres nothing unlawful about it. The next avenue is to see if this change is uncontitutional i.e does it break the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution regarding individual liberties. I fully agree with you that its an unfair, spiteful and mean change by people of narrow minds but illegal? no, imoral? by my standards yes. I'm particularly dismayed at the push for retrospective application of prop8
what a foul and flawed legal system we have here huh?
where you can put your money where your mouth is, spout out any bigotry, purchase votes and airtime, and opine to deny the basic rights of others. where you can lie to the world for the sake of riches and broadcast an exhortation to invasion and murder and deny people their right to live,
legally.
all hail the Freedom of Speech, the Right above all others.
Really! sorry about that. No misrepresentation intended. I hope I addressed that issue at some other point anyway but I'd be happy to respond specifically to that.
Another Youtube insomniac huh, where does the day go when you start watching those short videos
The ratio means very little at such a low view rate and its only half the viewers at the time that voted. At a risk of sounding smug its a reasonable video so earned both ratings. If I'd suddenly had 200 views and 100 5* ratings then that'd be weird. but theres no cheating going on or I'd have given myself a fuck load more views and ratings than a poxy 4 views two ratings. It currently stands at 19 views and 4 ratings as you can see. is that more satisfactory?
Well I would have to repeat that there are limits to free speech as I have highlighted in the vid. these are generally defined by laws of harassment, intimidation, active discrimination (i.e where it actually causes an illegal infringement of a persons rights) and incitement to criminal action etc. One would hope that the authority is limited in its power to suppress free speech as is guaranteed for instance by the American constitution and this is something that needs to be defended
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
I personally class that as hateful speech as I define in the video.However my personal opinion on the talking points of the churches on prop 8 were that they clearly misrepresented the nature of the issue. With it's purpose being to limit the rights of others, it could be SEEN to be hate speech, but I don't quite agree that it is, despite my vigorous disagreement with the stance. There are many grey areas in that one. tbc....
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
As for who gets to choose, well that's down to the law. The Idea of any 'unbiased' arbitrator of speech is a fallacy anyway so don't struggle with that unduly. By our nature, and by extension the nature of the law, we are subject to social bias, I am, You are, there's nothing we can really do about it other than try to look at the net effect of our decisions and try to be fair and this for me is where you have to weigh the demonstrable impact of ones rights and opinions against another persons.
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
I cant say I've ever seen a significant example of that, maybe you can provide an example. In my experience that tends to be more of a right wing stance (fox news is a prime example as are some religious organizations). My own opinion is you can state your point of view with the proviso's I lay out in the video and it in turn is open to criticism. BTW I'm not a leftist just so you know
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
prop8 was advocating the unlawful limitation and discrimination of peoples civil and legal rights to marriage based on gender and sexuality, no?
lets talk about prop8 first.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Prop8 8 was about changing the law, not violating it so no theres nothing unlawful about it. The next avenue is to see if this change is uncontitutional i.e does it break the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution regarding individual liberties. I fully agree with you that its an unfair, spiteful and mean change by people of narrow minds but illegal? no, imoral? by my standards yes. I'm particularly dismayed at the push for retrospective application of prop8
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
well there ya go.
what a foul and flawed legal system we have here huh?
where you can put your money where your mouth is, spout out any bigotry, purchase votes and airtime, and opine to deny the basic rights of others. where you can lie to the world for the sake of riches and broadcast an exhortation to invasion and murder and deny people their right to live,
legally.
all hail the Freedom of Speech, the Right above all others.
alovelytime 2 years ago
thank you for this vid. i agree with you.
you forgot to add, "right wing extremists" when you quoted my comment about fox and cnn !
for that, i will seek to have you banned from youtube.
i'm kidding.
i just noticed this vid and it's 3:30am where i live and i'm going to bed. i will come back to talk later.
take care.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Really! sorry about that. No misrepresentation intended. I hope I addressed that issue at some other point anyway but I'd be happy to respond specifically to that.
Another Youtube insomniac huh, where does the day go when you start watching those short videos
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
Comment removed
alovelytime 2 years ago
2 ratings + 4 views=WTF mate?
ROLFLOLZ117 2 years ago
Not sure I'm following you. is that wrong?
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
Thats a near impossible view/ rating ratio so I'm all like WTF
ROLFLOLZ117 2 years ago
The ratio means very little at such a low view rate and its only half the viewers at the time that voted. At a risk of sounding smug its a reasonable video so earned both ratings. If I'd suddenly had 200 views and 100 5* ratings then that'd be weird. but theres no cheating going on or I'd have given myself a fuck load more views and ratings than a poxy 4 views two ratings. It currently stands at 19 views and 4 ratings as you can see. is that more satisfactory?
I strive to get more in the future
SpaghettiNightmare 2 years ago
i wasn't accusing you I was just wondering what are the odds of such a high ratio
and you should strive for more because the video was very good
ROLFLOLZ117 2 years ago