New York City

Veritas Libertas

The city of New York has moved to pass laws that enable fines of anyone found to be committing 'hate'.

This can include using the words 'illegal alien'; despite it having a very real definition in law.

The city's Commission on Human Rights announced late last week that people who use such terms "with intent to demean, humiliate or harass a person" or who harass someone with "limited English proficiency" may be fined up to $250,000.

"Threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency are unlawful discriminatory treatment under the NYC Human Rights Law," the commission said.

"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”- George Orwell

sk8erboii

Who cares lol

Junkyard Tom

sk8erboii wrote: »

Who cares lol

Poor Sting won't be able to sing his song after his sex marathons the big twat.

Padre_Pio

Take a break from Twitter and US politics for a few weeks. Do you the world of good.

tdf7187

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The city of New York has moved to pass laws that enable fines of anyone found to be committing 'hate'.

This can include using the words 'illegal alien'; despite it having a very real definition in law.



"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”- George Orwell

I hate to break it to you but Orwell was a leftie. An anti-communist leftie, but still very much a leftie. You alt right edgelord types like to quote him but forget he had nothing in common with you.

Veritas Libertas

tdf7187 wrote: »

I hate to break it to you but Orwell was a leftie. An anti-communist leftie, but still very much a leftie. You alt right edgelord types like to quote him but forget he had nothing in common with you.

You're not breaking anything to me buddy, especially not with your pompous, self-righteous tone.
People like you that denigrate the character of their opponent rather than deal with the crux of the argument are insufferable.

Lance-kun

I think that using language in a hateful or dehumanising way should be fineable. It's fairly clear in the piece you quoted that it's the intent. Calling an illegal alien one by just stating it without any malice doesn't seem that it will be punishable. Then again that could change or be used wrongly.

Veritas Libertas

Lance-kun wrote: »

I think that using language in a hateful or dehumanising way should be fineable. It's fairly clear in the piece you quoted that it's the intent. Calling an illegal alien one by just stating it without any malice doesn't seem that it will be punishable. Then again that could change or be used wrongly.

A fair and accurate point.

My problem with the way the law is set up is who gets to judge whether the speech was said with the intention of hate or not?

What happens all too often in practice is that the appearance of said language is the proof of malice.

StupidLikeAFox

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You're not breaking anything to me buddy.

People like you that denigrate the character of their opponent rather than deal with the crux of the argument are insufferable.

Your transcript there is lifted straight off fox news. The guidance in question is not a new law. New York is a very multi cultural place and this guidance lays out a number of things that are not acceptable, such as saying things like "go back to your own country", threatening to call immigration on somebody (probably just if they have a different skin colour) or calling someone an illegal alien in a derogatory way. For example, they are clarifying that a phrase like "**** off you ****ing illegal alien" is not acceptable.

Here is the actual text of the guidance which you are taking umbrage with:
"The guidance states that the use of the term “illegal alien,” among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law"

What is your issue with the above? What real world scenarios do you think are impacted by this legal guidance? You haven't really given your own opinion on this other than a vague suggestion that New York is implementing some sort of thought control

Veritas Libertas

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Here is the actual text of the guidance which you are taking umbrage with:
"The guidance states that the use of the term “illegal alien,” among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law"

Who gets to decide the intent of the person saying it? You will realize the flaw in your position when you seriously consider this.

My position is that you should be free to say and do as you like so long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

Veritas Libertas

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Your transcript there is lifted straight off fox news.

Well your name is stupidlikeafox...

But seeing as you are so averse to fox news, here are the full reports on the New York City human rights website.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances.page

StupidLikeAFox

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My position is that you should be free to say and do as you like so long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

I agree. I am struggling to see how this routine guidance is in contravention of that. Its not exactly a common term, I mean do you foresee lots of people randomly being arrested because they innocently use the term "illegal alien"? How is it dangerous exactly?

Your Face

Haha, Good luck enforcing it away from the newly gentrified areas.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Who gets to decide the intent of the person saying it? You will realize the flaw in your position when you seriously consider this.

My position is that you should be free to say and do as you like so long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

This is why we appoint judges, they are supposed to be clever and unbiased people who get to decide these things on our behalf.

It's not a particularly good system, but noone has yet come up with a better one.

Veritas Libertas

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I agree. I am struggling to see how this routine guidance is in contravention of that. Its not exactly a common term, I mean do you foresee lots of people randomly being arrested because they innocently use the term "illegal alien"? How is it dangerous exactly?

Who decides whether it was used innocently or not? Is making a joke innocent?

Mark Meechan's Judge said “The evidence before this court was that the video was viewed as grossly offensive within Jewish communities in Scotland" The context that the video was a joke was ruled irrelevant.

The New Statesman performed a stitch up job of Roger Scruton, taking quotes like this out of context:

"Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing,"

The alarming thing is not that journalists would steep to such lows, but that we as the public would take these things at face value. Scruton was fired 5 hours after that article was published. That quote alone was irrefutable evidence. A look at the context surrounding this sentence reveals otherwise.

Malice becomes nearly impossible to prove. Advocacy groups put pressure to convict in these types of cases. Evidence of malice becomes about how the 'victim' interpreted the attack not the intentions of the 'attacker'.
Here's our current hate crime law from Gardai website:

‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

That's the bait and switch here.
We've moved from having to prove the intentions of the person committing the act to proving how offended people were(or could get) from this act.
This is a move towards criminalizing offence. A dangerous move. It now only depends 'who' is in power.

GMSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTDZ5O5lH_0

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

This is why we appoint judges, they are supposed to be clever and unbiased people who get to decide these things on our behalf.

It's not a particularly good system, but noone has yet come up with a better one.

Nobody has a problem with a judge presiding over a case where intention must be proved.

But if a judge presides over a case where malice needn't be proved; it now relies on the sole interpretation of that judge to rule to the effect of your words.

This is why we have juries.

The founding fathers included jury trials in the constitution because jury trials prevent tyranny. The definition of tyranny is oppressive power exerted by the government. Tyranny also exists when absolute power is vested in a single ruler. Jury trials are the opposite of tyranny because the citizens on the jury are given the absolute power to make the final decision.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Nobody has a problem with a judge presiding over a case where intention must be proved.

But if a judge presides over a case where malice needn't be proved; it now relies on the sole interpretation of that judge to rule to the effect of your words.

This is why we have juries.

Yup, that is why we have juries in "more important" cases. The point I'm making is that if you look deep enough, all of society's laws are based on arbitrary things, which have only one thing in common - they are supposed to help society survive and grow.


What gives any society the right to claim any land or island as their own, displacing the animals that lived there? (ie. who sold the land to them when they first arrived here?). The answer, of course, is "nothing". Yet we follow the laws that enforce land ownership because we don't have a better system right now that works.

It's important to keep hatred between citizens to a minimum in order to avoid infighting in society - united we stand, divided we fall. Hence the need for these anti-discrimination laws that restrict free speech.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

It's important to keep hatred between citizens to a minimum in order to avoid infighting in society - united we stand, divided we fall. Hence the need for these anti-discrimination laws that restrict free speech.

I'd agree with your premise, but fight tooth and nail against your conclusion.

Could you provide evidence why we need these laws, and what good it can do?

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'd agree with your premise, but fight tooth and nail against your conclusion.

Could you provide evidence why we need these laws, and what good it can do?

It depends on what evidence you would accept. I suspect you're not going to accept what I said at https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111321869&postcount=563



As a thought exercise, could you provide evidence why we need free speech?

For example, I'm strongly critical of the current Chinese government's censorship of everything, but as regards externally measurable things such as economy and life expectancy and technological progress, China seem to be doing pretty well without it. Again, the point of this is to point out how pretty much anything can be presented, and refuted, as "evidence" of good.

Lance-kun

Being punished for what you say is still free speech. You're allowed say whatever you want.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

It depends on what evidence you would accept. I suspect you're not going to accept what I said at https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111321869&postcount=563



As a thought exercise, could you provide evidence why we need free speech?

For example, I'm strongly critical of the current Chinese government's censorship of everything, but as regards externally measurable things such as economy and life expectancy and technological progress, China seem to be doing pretty well without it. Again, the point of this is to point out how pretty much anything can be presented, and refuted, as "evidence" of good.

Certainly you just presented your opinion as evidence! How very post-modern of you . I mean crime statistics that have dropped when hate laws were enacted, people in positions of power stating how effective hate crime laws are or anything like that.

Surely the people advocating these laws, like NYC human rights people, are doing it for a reason? Why are they forming these laws if its not helping anyone? How is it helping people?
I know you've stated you believe it stops the spread of misinformation; but have you ever seen proof of this, does any exist?

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Certainly you just presented your opinion as evidence! How very post-modern of you . I mean crime statistics that have dropped when hate laws were enacted, people in positions of power stating how effective hate crime laws are or anything like that.

Surely the people advocating these laws, like NYC human rights people, are doing it for a reason? Why are they forming these laws if its not helping anyone? How is it helping people?
I know you've stated you believe it stops the spread of misinformation; but have you ever seen proof of this, does any exist?

And you’ve completely sidestepped my earlier questions, how neat
Please also explain how my actions are post-modern, if you can.
Asking for crime statistics available from when this has been done before sounds ridiculous, how would that even be measured in a statistic form? “Crime that was not crime at the time, but is now crime under hate crime laws”?

You’re basically saying (to use my earlier analogy) “I’m not going to believe you when you predict that the expensive vase will shatter when it impacts the ground, unless you show me a video of a previous expensive vase that you dropped and which shattered on the ground”. You can’t (or refuse to) see the things most others can see, for some reason. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing you’re just young and not that experienced yet that is not meant as an insult btw

hetuzozaho

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The city of New York has moved to pass laws that enable fines of anyone found to be committing 'hate'.

Sounds like a great idea.

TheValeyard

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Sounds like a great idea.

If I were a betting man I'd say it will be struck down by the courts.

20Wheel

I wanted to thank you OP.
But then you quoted Orwell like a fedora.

But yeah, agree.

nkl12xtw5goz70

The First Amendment supersedes all state laws and local ordinances, so this will inevitably be struck down on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that so-called "hate speech" is legally protected under the First Amendment.

notobtuse

Citizens of New York City were devastated when they learned their mayor was dropping out of the primary election for president and would be returning to the city to continue doing his work.

JohnMc1

This is just feel good virtue signalling now that we're entering the Election Cycle. No way would that hold up in a Court of Law. It would be ruled Unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment.

JohnMc1

notobtuse wrote: »

Citizens of New York City were devastated when they learned their mayor was dropping out of the primary election for president and would be returning to the city to continue doing his work.

Yep. They were devastated because he can now return to NY and **** it up even worse.

notobtuse

JohnMc1 wrote: »

This is just feel good virtue signalling now that we're entering the Election Cycle. No way would that hold up in a Court of Law. It would be ruled Unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment.

I’ve had some dealing with NYC and their methods. I just pay any fines and fees, as it’s just too costly to fight in NYC with all their draconian rules. And, sure, it will not pass muster in the end, but it will inevitably cost you tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to 'win.' If the term ‘you can’t fight city hall’ wasn’t coined for NYC, it should have been.