Num1d1um said:
Let's get something clear, I don't snip because it would make it easy to act like you said things you clearly did not. I snip because otherwise a single post would take up half a goddamn page. You clearly are using it for the former.
First, I never once said you were a nut job. I said you wouldn't respond to those examples, because otherwise you would come off as a nut job, or undermine your position on the subject of free speech, because no matter what, you can't rationally defend that position, which you STILL DIDN'T DO. You still haven't given any reason why yelling fire in a crowded theater, or calling in a fake bomb threat is defensible, because the only person who would say that they are is a nut job. You STILL haven't responded to it, because you know i'm right, and that you have no ground to stand on in that particular case example.
Your second paragraph states that having rules in place against verbal assault would just encourage kids to bully other kids, completely ignoring the fact that no school in america thinks that kind of stuff is alright, and it's been that way for decades. And because i'm just psychic, I can already predict that either you or someone else will point out that bullying has been on the rise as of late, either directly stating or implying that this is due to an increased push in political correctness, rather than the much more obvious reason that the rise in social networking has allowed those same bullies to avoid the repercussions that comes with doing that in real life. They don't do it because it's cool. They do it because they're horrible people who can get away with it.
Don't get me wrong though, it was certainly cute how in the "fire vs fire" bit, you threw out the extreme example of physical violence as your first thought, which honestly says more about you than me (EDIT: Actually, after reading that again, I think its less cute, and more clever. It's a classic debate tactic: Introduce an obviously extreme example that nobody would get behind, eventually working your way down to a facsimile of what my point actually was, with the reader associating that with your original "physical violence" schtick. This makes me think you might be trolling, in which case I still would think its cute, because that would make you another 13 year old with a keyboard who can't tell the difference between "trolling" and "saying things for attention". And yes, there is a huge difference). You're also completely backwards on the law's ineffectiveness. If you disregard all of the people it has helped in general with giving their harassers an actual punishment to face, and how that has prevented a good portion of cases to begin with, then you still have the cultural impact of them. Back in the day, it wasn't an uncommon site for people to be outright killed, just for insignificant and uncontrollable differences, whereas now, we decry such horrible acts, and have driven the people who feel it necessary to spew hatred everywhere to the darker corners to fester quietly. It's very similar to the broken windows theory of sociology. If someone breaks a window to a house, and leaves it unfixed, people begin to think of that as okay. If it continues to not be repaired, more likely than not, other windows will be broken, because that's considered okay, and there aren't any punishments for it. This eventually escalates into larger-scale crime, such as graffiti, which, again, if left untreated leads to even larger scale crime.
Saying that this does not have any correlation to unrestricted free speech is ignoring incredible similarities. If someone in a group starts making bigoted comments, and no one in the group discourages them in any way, (or worse, encourages them), then that very easily becomes normal for that person, and very likely becomes normal for the group. This attitude makes it okay for such bigotry to escalate to a point far past what anyone would've been okay with at the beginning. This is why we currently have this attitude in many parts of the web of "Oh, its okay to drive this person away from our community with hate speech, because we've always talked that way with each other! I'ts boys being boys!". Obviously I could point to that video of the creeper smelling the girl during the Street Fighter X Tekken tournament as a prime example of this, but I doubt anyone on here hasn't already seen it, and already knows how bad these kinds of things can get when we allow them to.
As for the who or what determines it, I think the current system of examining them on a case by case basis is perfect, because as I have stated previously, the thing that turns those "jokes" into bigotry is intent, and you can't determine that with a broad, sweeping law, like you seem to want to. Hell, in my opinion, our current system is just a bit too lenient, given that people can get away with advocating violence in people, as long as they don't directly tell them too.
Again, your next paragraph is cute, because it's pulling one of the most cliche fallacies of them all: "There are more important things going on in the world, x is irrelevant by comparison". If those things are so much more important to you, then you should be going out, volunteering your time and money to fix them, not debating this on a message board.
In response to subjectivity, there is a reason that its not just up to one person to determine the ramifications of someones speech. I have never heard of an example of such a thing happening. The very reason that we do not allow those people to administer the punishment is because yes, it IS open to subjectivity. And in the end, if the majority consensus is that you're in the wrong, there's an excellent chance that you're in the wrong. Do you think that bigots think they're doing anything wrong? Of course not! Its the reason we don't allow THEM to administer their own punishment.
Finally, you're inserting you're own viewpoint into my post by stating that i'm advocating completely removing any and all offensive speech from view, which if you actually read my post, I clearly wasn't. I'm saying that its not okay for people to be harassed under the guise of freedom of speech. I stand by that point, and I always will. Saying that verbal abuse should be given any protection is saying that it's okay. That it doesn't have any damaging effects on the people subjected to it. This is wrong, in every sense. It is not okay, and it certainly does have damaging effects on people. You clearly haven't ever been affected by this, and for that you should consider yourself lucky, because it has other people. Many other people. Saying "oh well, they should just tough it out" isn't some empowering statement. Its disregarding other peoples emotions and experiences, or in a word, ignorant. And ignorance is what allows things like bigotry to continue to exist, and thrive.
Krion_Vark said:
Oh and by the way I never disagreed with you that the analogy was bad or not just whether or not it worked. An analogy doesn't need to be good to work.
I'm sorry, but I cant just leave this one alone.
Re-read that quote. Does it still make sense to you? If it does, re-read again, wash, repeat. It would be like me comparing reading that analogy to seeing someone beat their wife next door. In both cases, I end up disgusted, and responding to it to point out what is wrong with what they're doing, albeit with less cops and blunt objects in the analogy's case.