Current Events > Norway bans hate speech against trans and bisexual people.

(+) Yeah! (+)

King_Hutton posted...

Show hate speech laws in Norway being applied how youre suggesting if you want anyone to take your complaints seriously

So it is insufficient in your mind to show hate speech laws being misapplied elsewhere as evidence that hate speech laws can be misapplied?

And apparently it is also never warranted to be critical of something that can have negative consequences until the negative consequences have arrived. Which is obviously absurd.

You understand most functioning adults are capable of having discussions that talk about things that may not have happened yet but perfectly validly could.

Law: "There is a ban umbrellas in Norway on November 14th 2020"
Me: "That's a bad idea because it could rain on November 14th 2020"
You: "Show me evidence of it raining in Norway on November 14th 2020 if you want anyone to take your complaints seriously"

Obviously the discussion at hand is about the risk of hate speech laws, a risk you are apparently not at all willing to indulge. But sure, to coddle your laziness I can give a few examples:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-london-a7064246.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133

Many places are considering very dangerous extensions to hate speech laws. Things reasonable people should be concerned about, but idk if you'd just laugh and dismiss them too:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/04/uk-lawyers-uneasy-about-plan-to-prosecute-hate-speech-at-home

The point is that people have paid and will pay fines and maybe even eventually do prison time over WORDS, not actions, not plans to commit crimes, but simply words. Anybody responsible would see the risks there and be willing to have a discussion about possible negative outcomes.

---

King_Hutton posted...

This topic is about Norway

Ok, but what about this article from England?

---

Norway: trans and bisexual people deserve to not be demonized
CE: you know who the real victim is here? My right to free speech, and by that I mean I need to be able to say whatever I want without fear of repercussion.

I get it, CE, plenty of you are bigots.

---

FlameTurtle posted...

Ok, but what about this article from England?

Why not this article from America while we're at it /sarcasm

They'll keep deflecting to whatever they want

---

I don't know why people want the right to have hate speech so badly

---

joe40001 posted...

So it is insufficient in your mind to show hate speech laws being misapplied elsewhere as evidence that hate speech laws can be misapplied?

And apparently it is also never warranted to be critical of something that can have negative consequences until the negative consequences have arrived. Which is obviously absurd.

You understand most functioning adults are capable of having discussions that talk about things that may not have happened yet but perfectly validly could.

Law: "There is a ban umbrellas in Norway on November 14th 2020"
Me: "That's a bad idea because it could rain on November 14th 2020"
You: "Show me evidence of it raining in Norway on November 14th 2020 if you want anyone to take your complaints seriously"

Obviously the discussion at hand is about the risk of hate speech laws, a risk you are apparently not at all willing to indulge. But sure, to coddle your laziness I can give a few examples:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-london-a7064246.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133

Many places are considering very dangerous extensions to hate speech laws. Things reasonable people should be concerned about, but idk if you'd just laugh and dismiss them too:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/04/uk-lawyers-uneasy-about-plan-to-prosecute-hate-speech-at-home

The point is that people have paid and will pay fines and maybe even eventually do prison time over WORDS, not actions, not plans to commit crimes, but simply words. Anybody responsible would see the risks there and be willing to have a discussion about possible negative outcomes.

So nothing from Norway. Cant believe you typed all that out without even pretending to answer my question. Pretty sad.

---

ThyCorndog posted...

I don't know why people want the right to have hate speech so badly

Because they're bigots who will never reevaluate why their views are so offensive. And it doesn't help most of them are of groups that have never and will never be discriminated against wherever they currently reside.

---

King_Hutton posted...

This topic is about Norway

lol seriously?

Ok then, let's review the NORWAY law:
135. Med Bder eller med Hefte eller Fngsel indtil 1 Aar straffes den som udstter den almindelige Fred for Fare ved offentlig at forhaane eller ophidse til Had mod Statsforfatningen eller nogen offentlig Myndighed eller ved offentlig at ophidse en Del af Befolkningen mod en anden, eller som medvirker hertil.0Endret ved lover 9 juni 1961 nr. 8, 5 juni 1970 nr. 34.

Can you believe how dangerous that is?!?

Also, you wanted an example? Here is a tweet that was fined for being hate speech:
"du opptrer som en irriterende drlig tro-idiot nr du ikke erkjenner det penbare faktum at det begrense ytringsfriheten kan f alvorlige negative konsekvenser"

Can you believe it? So harmless a comment!

Thanks for keeping this just to Norway, as obviously the discussion about the dangers of restriction on free speech via hate speech law should be pedantically limitedly to a country in which none of the people here speak the language just to artificially boost your asinine position's claim of a lack of evidence to the counterpoint.

---

joe40001 posted...

lol seriously?

Yes, this topic is seriously about Norway

---

joe40001 posted...

lol seriously?

Ok then, let's review the NORWAY law:
135. Med Bder eller med Hefte eller Fngsel indtil 1 Aar straffes den som udstter den almindelige Fred for Fare ved offentlig at forhaane eller ophidse til Had mod Statsforfatningen eller nogen offentlig Myndighed eller ved offentlig at ophidse en Del af Befolkningen mod en anden, eller som medvirker hertil.0Endret ved lover 9 juni 1961 nr. 8, 5 juni 1970 nr. 34.

Can you believe how dangerous that is?!?

Also, you wanted an example? Here is a tweet that was fined for being hate speech:
"du opptrer som en irriterende drlig tro-idiot nr du ikke erkjenner det penbare faktum at det begrense ytringsfriheten kan f alvorlige negative konsekvenser"

Can you believe it? So harmless a comment!

Thanks for keeping this just to Norway, as obviously the discussion about the dangers of restriction on free speech via hate speech law should be pedantically limitedly to a country in which none of the people here speak the language just to artificially boost your asinine position's claim of a lack of evidence to the counterpoint.

dont kill em

---

King_Hutton posted...

Yes, this topic is seriously about Norway

Pretty sure this topic is about hate speech laws in general also gj ignoring the evidence that goes completely against your argument.

I believe in your last few posts you have quite succinctly demonstrated your completely lack of rigor or competence in engaging ideas that challenge you.

I can now tag you and move on, knowing fully well that I will never have to waste time talking to you under the pretense that I was talking to a person with anything meaningful to say.

---

joe40001 posted...

Pretty sure this topic is about hate speech laws in general

No, it's pretty specifically about a Norwegian law.

joe40001 posted...

I believe in your last few posts you have quite succinctly demonstrated your completely lack of rigor or competence in engaging ideas that challenge you.

I can now tag you and move on, knowing fully well that I will never have to waste time talking to you under the pretense that I was talking to a person with anything meaningful to say.

I'm sure he'll be crushed.

---

joe40001 posted...

Pretty sure this topic is about hate speech laws in general also gj ignoring the evidence that goes completely against your argument.

I believe in your last few posts you have quite succinctly demonstrated your completely lack of rigor or competence in engaging ideas that challenge you.

I can now tag you and move on, knowing fully well that I will never have to waste time talking to you under the pretense that I was talking to a person with anything meaningful to say.

No this topic is very specifically about hate speech laws in Norway. Maybe instead of translating inane flames you could have read the title or the first post. Have fun being condescending while offering nothing remotely resembling an original thought.

---

joe40001 posted...

What makes you sure that any law can differentiate "actual hate speech" from "things that shouldn't be labeled hate speech but could be"? Your flippant dismissal?

You are doing a style of argument I've seen before, it's "incredulity as evidence".

You simply chortle at a valid suggestion as if that disproves it's validity. There is plenty of evidence of hate speech laws being applied to people doing non-hateful things.

It's an obviously incoherent style of argument as anybody can easily just quote something and say "lol yeah right". If I did it back to you this discussion would go nowhere and we'd be all the dumber for it.

People vigorously and without qualification defending hate speech laws are clearly doing so out of a shallow "derp hate be bad and bad is no good" line of logic, frankly there is nothing to respect about the argument of somebody defending hate speech laws unless they are capable of acknowledging the areas they could be problematic, which you apparently aren't.

Or... Ya know... Common sense... I'd imagine the people running a country aren't the snowflakes sitting around whining about things on the inter- oh shit... I forgot about trump.

Damn.
---

Conflict posted...

I don't think anybody cares who you tag or who you declare unworthy of discourse

just figured I'd let you know

But Im sure Im going to miss out on real exciting stuff from the dude who couldnt figure out that this topic is about Norway.

---

Emotionally satisfying, philosophically disappointing.

---

The right to speak openly without legal repercussions (barring threats and calls to violence) is the fucking foundation of the society you live in. If you don't like that, the problem is with you, not society.

Edit: for the Wokish, I'm gay and have Asperger's, so don't give me that shit about "well you're just saying that because you've never encountered real discrimination blah blah blah"

---

They're really struggling with this "Norway" thing

---

People in norway fragile as fuck lol

---

Gunpla is just trolling at this point, tag and ignore her.

---

FlameTurtle posted...

They're really struggling with this "Norway" thing

I dont know whats so confusing about it

---

ColdOne666 posted...

Gunpla is just trolling at this point, tag and ignore her.

this is where i feel obligated to point everyone reading along back to post #190.

---

Medussa posted...

this is where i feel obligated to point everyone reading along back to post #190.

I can't believe the user who has an incredibly long history of being transphobic is once again being transphobic.

---

FlameTurtle posted...

I can't believe the user who has an incredibly long history of being transphobic is once again being transphobic.

Shhh you don't want the mods to find this topic and start deleting the posts of bigots now, do you?

XD

---

FlameTurtle posted...

I can't believe the user who has an incredibly long history of being transphobic is once again being transphobic.

It's not transphobia to realize the physical advantages males have over females, that's why they're separated in sports.

If they want to become female and be treated as such in everyday life, sure, do you. But don't think it's a fair fight because you underwent gender reassignment.

It's not about equality/trans rights at this point, it's about safety and not repeating the shitshow last time that resulted in a fractured skull due to a severe mismatch.

It's not like Sonny Kiss in AEW where its a staged fight and their being born male is irrelevant, this is real shit and someone could get killed.

ColdOne666 posted...

Gunpla is just trolling at this point, tag and ignore her.

If you're ignoring them and won't see their posts why tag them?

Dgmw I'm down for either concerning this particular user, but my question stands.
---

literally can't even bother to do enough research to bitch about the right person.

---

Medussa posted...

literally can't even bother to do enough research to bitch about the right person.

If they cared about facts they probably wouldn't be transphobes. They'd probably not have such thin skin either.

---

Medussa posted...

literally can't even bother to do enough research to bitch about the right person.

You referenced post 190, which referred to trans people fighting in UFC. They're apparently a bigot for their opinion on the matter in the post I quoted.

So...???
---

Sonny Kiss isn't trans. NB, maybe, but he's not fighting women.

---

gunplagirl posted...

If they cared about facts they probably wouldn't be transphobes. They'd probably not have such thin skin either.

If I were a transphobe I wouldn't have posted my agreeing with the law, nor argued that hate speech shouldn't be protected, all through this topic.

This "agree with everything or youre a transphobe" makes your point look weak, hurts the community overall as it makes onlookers think all trans people are as extremist as you, and should stop.

Kthnx.
---

Medussa posted...

Sonny Kiss isn't trans. NB, maybe, but he's not fighting women.

It was an example of a MtF trans person in a sports setting, and although I don't watch AEW I've heard enough of it that I'm 99.9% sure they've wrestled women, in fact they either faced Nyla Rose or it was a tag match, I don't remember but I'll check for sure as I could be wrong.

They're also not nonbinary if they're constantly referred to as "she".

Regardless, you misunderstood my point which makes your point irrelevant.
---

Lord_Wombat posted...

You referenced post 190, which referred to trans people fighting in UFC. They're apparently a bigot for their opinion on the matter in the post I quoted.

So...???

i referened 190 in response to trolling, for the record.

but if we want specifics on why that mindset is silly:

Fallon Fox was 5-1 in her career. all six of her opponents agreed to the matches. her five wins came against 5 women who ended their careers at .500 or lower, and her loss came against a woman who ended her career 6-4.

not quite the worldbeater, eh?

and these matches happened 6+ years ago. I can't think of another trans mma fighter since. I'm not super into the sport, but i think it'd make enough noise for me to hear about it.

not quite the takeover, eh?

---

Sonny isn't picky about pronouns. JR commonly uses "she", but almost everyone else uses "he". but he's on record being ok with either.

and he's not wrestling women. he's usually tagging with Joey Janela. He had a very high profile match with Cody not that long ago.

---

Medussa posted...

and these matches happened 6+ years ago. I can't think of another trans mma fighter since

If I weren't so incredibly lazy I'd post this to r/selfawarewolves

Medussa posted...

Sonny isn't picky about pronouns. JR commonly uses "she", but almost everyone else uses "he". but he's on record being ok with either.

and he's not wrestling women. he's usually tagging with Joey Janela. He had a very high profile match with Cody not that long ago.

That's fine, as I said already I only brought them up as an example not necessarily the end all be all of the subject.
---

Lord_Wombat posted...

It was an example of a MtF trans person in a sports setting, and although I don't watch AEW I've heard enough of it that I'm 99.9% sure they've wrestled women, in fact they either faced Nyla Rose or it was a tag match, I don't remember but I'll check for sure as I could be wrong.

They're also not nonbinary if they're constantly referred to as "she".

Regardless, you misunderstood my point which makes your point irrelevant.

Sonny Kiss is non-binary and uses both he/him and she/her pronouns. He wrestles men. Nyla Rose is a trans woman. She wrestles women.

This isnt a point about anything I just wanted to clarify.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Because they're bigots who will never reevaluate why their views are so offensive. And it doesn't help most of them are of groups that have never and will never be discriminated against wherever they currently reside.

No. No. No.

Anti speech laws are dangerous because they are a threat to free expression and thought. Nobody is saying there shouldnt be repercussions. But notice how quickly people went from its Ok for a business to fire you or the public to shame you, to now we need to government agents to use their authority and ultimately their guns to put you in prison. This is a dangerous situation for everyone. Laws are open to interpretation by courts and can change again and again to fit whatever you want it to fit. Protected classes are whatever you want it to be, and in fact did not exist for most of history. Certain people are supporting these kinds of laws because they do not realize it can be used against them as well.

Fucking Trump at one point was implying that people shouldnt be allowed to badmouth him and there damn well are leaders like Turkeys Erdogan and Chinas Xi Jinping who will legally punish you for speaking against them.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

in fact did not exist for most of history.

Is this really the best you can do

---

superXY posted...

The right to speak openly without legal repercussions (barring threats and calls to violence) is the fucking foundation of the society you live in. If you don't like that, the problem is with you, not society.

Edit: for the Wokish, I'm gay and have Asperger's, so don't give me that shit about "well you're just saying that because you've never encountered real discrimination blah blah blah"

It's funny that intersectionality points literally make a difference to these people when they consider an argument's merits. Anyway be prepared to deal with asinine claim that since you did not specifically mention Norway your true statement is irrelevant to the topic.

---

So much for that "moving on" thing

---

I mean Americas legal system claims spending money is speech. They could easily just say hate speech is violence and not speech. Fufufufu

---

joe40001 posted...

Also, you wanted an example? Here is a tweet that was fined for being hate speech:
"du opptrer som en irriterende drlig tro-idiot nr du ikke erkjenner det penbare faktum at det begrense ytringsfriheten kan f alvorlige negative konsekvenser"

Can you believe it? So harmless a comment!

Thanks for keeping this just to Norway, as obviously the discussion about the dangers of restriction on free speech via hate speech law should be pedantically limitedly to a country in which none of the people here speak the language just to artificially boost your asinine position's claim of a lack of evidence to the counterpoint.

I really doubt that tweet by itself was the reason someone was fined.

---

Musourenka posted...

I really doubt that tweet by itself was the reason someone was fined.

That tweet wasnt a real thing that got anyone fined, hes just trolling by translating his own meltdown and pretending that his argument holds any water

---