What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Kepler said:
I didn't realize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

"incites hate against" is pretty broad.
Click to expand...

It's the law they used to ban playing the original version of Dire Straits' Money for Nothing, due to the line, "Look at them faggots, that's the way to do it..." I take umberage with their decision because it was based upon an argument which completely removes context of how the line was used within the lyrics.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

geezer said:
It wasn't here on USCHO, but there are people calling for criminal penalties for displaying it (they would consider it a "hate crime"). Yeah, that would be a pretty serious overreach. I think BigBlue probably hit the right balance between banning it completely and flying it over the White House.
I don't understand the "rant" accusation though. Is it so bad to ask the question of what best to do?
If it completely freaks you out to have people discuss the news of the day you probably shouldn't be on the internet. Find a nice quiet place.
Click to expand...

A) I don't see anyone "freaking out" about it.
B) In your initial post you seemed to be pretty clearly suggesting legislation against certain speech i.e. the displaying of the Confederate flag. And that, violating the first amendment, is going to get called out by some of us every time.
C) If YOU can't take someone pushing back against your suggestions, perhaps it is you who need to find a quiet place.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

joecct said:
Being offended (as opposed to being harmed) has been raised to a crime.
Click to expand...

In Canada. No wonder they're so polite. :)

Despite being a bleeding heart liberal, I think you should have to infer harmful intent before you can start imposing criminal penalties. For example, could the Lynah Faithful fall under the Canadian law by saying "you're not a black hole, you just suck"?
 
Kepler said:
In Canada. No wonder they're so polite. :)

Despite being a bleeding heart liberal, I think you should have to infer harmful intent before you can start imposing criminal penalties. For example, could the Lynah Faithful fall under the Canadian law by saying "you're not a black hole, you just suck"?
Click to expand...
I think the Cornell Administration (and that of most colleges) is secretly Canadian.

The Faithful will be told to be nice because those hateful chants will hurt the feelings of the opposition.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

unofan said:
Probably because absolutely no one is calling for the confederate flag to be "banned" - as in made criminally illegal. The first amendment pretty clearly protects it.
Click to expand...

uhhh... http://www.wnem.com/story/29386560/...teps-ban-confederate-flag-from-license-plates

I'm not going to consider any private establishments in this argument, because they have the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Government institutions, on the other hand...
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
uhhh... http://www.wnem.com/story/29386560/...teps-ban-confederate-flag-from-license-plates

I'm not going to consider any private establishments in this argument, because they have the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Government institutions, on the other hand...
Click to expand...

Do not have to put racist statements on their property, and license plates are government property. There was a SCOTUS case within the last week (which was unusually prescient) stating that license plates are government speech.

And in any event, it's still legal for a troll such as yourself to put the confederate flag on his car if he wants to.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
That second one is particularly awful. I don't care how "Americana" this stuff is, who the hell is actually decorating their homes with it?

Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima get a pass because while they originally stem from racial stereotypes (the black mammy and the house you-know-what), today they can still pass for ordinary, respectable senior citizens. A poster of a child in minstrel-face with corn rows, eating watermelon, and selling a product branded with a racial slur does not.
Click to expand...

GD it... Since breakfast is rarely a time when my brain is operating, I've never thought of them as the "house-you-know-whats"... :(
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Kepler said:
In Canada. No wonder they're so polite. :)

Despite being a bleeding heart liberal, I think you should have to infer harmful intent before you can start imposing criminal penalties. For example, could the Lynah Faithful fall under the Canadian law by saying "you're not a black hole, you just suck"?
Click to expand...

Nope, just plagiarizers
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
This is what they're freaking out about.
Click to expand...

I'm sincerely sorry it was taken that way; I actually am NOT sold on a legal ban on printing the flag (I can see some people will still accuse me of ranting and lying no matter what I say at this point, but so be it), just wondering out of curiosity where the line should be drawn between legal and illegal display. I expected more thoughtful responses along the lines of, a post office window might be too public while a history textbook might be OK. Thank you to the people that were willing to provide some helpful education on this. Sorry for upsetting people.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

geezer said:
I'm sincerely sorry it was taken that way; I actually am NOT sold on a legal ban on printing the flag (I can see some people will still accuse me of ranting and lying no matter what I say at this point, but so be it), just wondering out of curiosity where the line should be drawn between legal and illegal display. I expected more thoughtful responses along the lines of, a post office window might be too public while a history textbook might be OK. Thank you to the people that were willing to provide some helpful education on this. Sorry for upsetting people.
Click to expand...

Private entities: OK
Public entities (not including history books in public schools, museums, etc): Not OK
 
geezer said:
I'm sincerely sorry it was taken that way; I actually am NOT sold on a legal ban on printing the flag (I can see some people will still accuse me of ranting and lying no matter what I say at this point, but so be it), just wondering out of curiosity where the line should be drawn between legal and illegal display. I expected more thoughtful responses along the lines of, a post office window might be too public while a history textbook might be OK. Thank you to the people that were willing to provide some helpful education on this. Sorry for upsetting people.
Click to expand...

You didn't upset anyone, but your terminology doesn't help the clarity of your message. There's a difference between asking where it'd be appropriate to place it, and talking about banning it or making it criminal to display.

Legally, it can be displayed anywhere. Case closed. Whether that's socially acceptable or not is a wholly different question. And it certainly sounded like you were arguing against the former, not asking about the limits of the latter.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

unofan said:
You didn't upset anyone, but your terminology doesn't help the clarity of your message. There's a difference between asking where it'd be appropriate to place it, and talking about banning it or making it criminal to display.

Legally, it can be displayed anywhere. Case closed. Whether that's socially acceptable or not is a wholly different question. And it certainly sounded like you were arguing against the former, not asking about the limits of the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess you're right that it's not actually an open question. I took the opinions of some social media bloviators too seriously, to think it might be legally banned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top