It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is hate speech now

page: 10
66
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
How could that be defined by Facebook as Hate Speech?




posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ChefFox

That’s the insane thing about all of this.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ChefFox

They should change it's name to 'Hatebook'.

Bar a seldom occasion, I haven't used it for nearly a decade.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo




Screw your minute. I've wasted hours scrolling past your S&F whoring addiction posts.
You gonna give those back?


So DB lives rent free in your mind?

*Shudders*



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I thought some ATS members from the US and other countries might find recent developments on the definition of "hate speech" in South Africa interesting.

I read in the papers this week, that in an astounding turn of events, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in South Africa has re-narrowed the definition of "hate speech" (which was going down an unending spiral of censoring "free speech") to be re-aligned to our negotiated 1994 Constitution.


The SCA has now ruled that Pepuda has unfairly expanded the definition of hate speech contained in the Constitution in three ways: By classifying something that is “hurtful” as hate speech. That has never been part of the pure hate speech definition of the Constitution, but has been used in various cases before equality courts as a reason to declare something as hate speech. By saying that something is hate speech if it is hurtful, or is harmful, or incites harm, or promotes or propagates hatred. The Constitution refers to hate speech on the grounds of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation and religion. Pepuda’s definitions expanded this to include language, convictions, disability, pregnancy, colour, culture and anything else that undermines human dignity or perpetuates systemic disadvantage.

city-press.news24.com...

Although so far the only people who have been subjected to de facto massive fines and imprisonment have been members of the white minority, despite cases of apparent threats of violence against them being dismissed repeatedly. This in itself was starting to seem like a vilification of minorities, and an eventual recipe for unrest, international sanctions and even civil war. Spearheading the fears and outrage among minority communities was the ruling that simply possessing the "old (1928-1994) flag" was "hate speech" (unless it was for academic purposes) - even in your own bedroom! Then there was the case of Vicki Momberg, the first white South African to be jailed for essentially potty mouth, although she had just been a victim of crime at the time and according to some had a psychotic black-out, and the cops she was allegedly insulting were of various races, and at the time couldn't hear a word she was saying through their service earphones. [See: en.wikipedia.org...]

Now it still needs to go through various courts to ratify the SCA, and all cases (meaning essentially whites accused before the "human rights" inquisition, those who have paid lucrative fines - yeah accusing whites of "racism" was becoming a jackpot lottery, and Momberg stays in prison - a traumatized woman who needed psychiatric help, not further trauma).

My personal guess is they will keep this open, because the ANC does not want to become a sanctioned racist pariah state at present, but as soon as Trump is gone and a Marxist party should be in power in the White House that allows them to do what they want (and related ideologues will copy much of it in the US), the SA white minority can expect a return to business as usual: the expropriation of white-owned property and no "hate speech" for me (as a white male), but it's allowed for thee.

But so far, I'm pretty pleased somebody has put a stop sign somewhere on how far limits to the freedom of expression can go, before they incite the very divisions in a diverse society they are actually supposed to prevent (assuming that was the intention in the first place, rather than turning the screws on certain groups, and not others).
edit on 3-12-2019 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Does this trigger women who don't have nice legs?



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman
Frankly I'm shocked anyone would apply the brakes in the bus going over the cliff in SA. Good on them i say! "Hate speech" is already such a nebulous term that the misapplication of the law was already a given. it's basically become a tool of racism - the very thing it is supposed to help stop.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Indeed, although as my article above makes clear, all current cases and accusations remain under investigation in South Africa, until a higher court (seems like a legal maze) agrees with this decision.

Without flooding the thread here with SA articles, opinion pieces or arguments, I'd still say proceed with extreme caution with what you say, where you are (always have witnesses with you) and what you write on social media from SA.

Of course the leftist academia and the media gatekeepers who've been through their ideological sausage factory say all offensive speech equals "violence" (a complete neo-Marxist campus reworking of the objective dictionary definition of "violence") against "vulnerable communities". But what constitutes a "vulnerable community" in SA at the moment (especially considering the violent black-on-black xenophobia)? It is still a bit of a loophole. It's downright paradoxical at times between spokespersons of the same party even. I think what they really want is to close all Constitutional loopholes so that the leftist troika of the ANC, EFF, BLF can say what they want, while throwing a legal book at everybody else. Too many of their own are currently at the cusp of trouble. Academically they can argue for double-standards, but Constitutionally that doesn't really fly for long. But watch, I wouldn't be surprised if they amend the Constitution to suit themselves, just as they did with race-based land expropriation.

I think this is just stalling to get their own "Africanist" homophobes, xenophobes and racists out of doo-doo, because some of those fines are quite outstanding, and the racist double-standard can't be excused for long.

So stay safe, fellow South Africans!

P.S. For more on Vicki Momberg and a campaign to release her please see:
realnewssa.com...


edit on 3-12-2019 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Thejaybird

Yet another person who just doesn't get it.

Is the picture in the OP hate speech?

If yes, then you're an idiot.

If no, then you agree with me.

Since you've chosen not to agree with me, I'll have to assume that your IQ is around room temp.

Get help.


No, DB. You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter if the words in the photo are the chant for summoning Satan himself, that's not the point because the photo isn't on behalf of the government in order to violate freedom of speech. Which is the only entity we're protected from regarding it, NOT EACH OTHER. They can call it hate speech all they want under their house rules, it doesn't make it hate speech under the law. Kind of like how I can try to argue yelling "DB has Taco Bell farts!!" in a crowded space is inciting a panic. Technically, it isn't, legally. The owner of the crowded space, however, might strongly disagree. At best, this is evidence of social shades of gray with what falls under the everyday definition, not the legal one.

Back to the choice aspect. The best analogy for businesses having their own set of rules to follow whether we like it or not that I can think is is the black tie restaurant one -- Joe can't be turned away for being purple with green polka dots, or gay, or both, as it has no impact on being a patron so long as he follows the rules established for dress.
If the dress rules are violated and he shows up in rags, he can be turned away or barred from returning. In this vein, the dress code is the site regs, and if you don't follow them, tough s#. If the restaurant says "Wear a panda suit or no service", then wear the effing panda suit, or go elsewhere.

I don't see anyone being forced to post anywhere particular, reading the T & Cs and following them is up to the patron. Kinda like deciding to wear the panda suit. It's your call, make a choice. Just don't sit there and cry foul because you want to try to claim the government has a hand in forcing you to put the furry costume on to begin with when they don't. The government didn't make the rule, the establishment did. Direct your ire in the correct direction and bitch to the establishment directly. However, don't be surprised if they don't care what you think, because they have free reign to make their own castle rules.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

No, it's a societal thing.

Already we see people that are okay with banning, censoring hate speech. Go to any campus and ask.

They are okay with banning hate speech.

Once the threshold is reached, there will be a consensus among the people to censor hate speech, because there already is a growing consensus.

It doesn't matter what the speech is, if they can call it hate speech, then the growing thought process will be to ban it.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Although I agree that businesses should theoretically have that leeway, in practice there has been local state interference to ensure "equality".

First it was about "lgbt" clubs in the gay village in Cape Town.
Can one have a male only club?
About 2006 the courts still decided yes, as long there's a female only club within the vicinity.
And yeah at the time there were such facilities for both genders, so it was allowed.
Of course nowadays things are moving towards gender fluidity, and personal identity, rather than physical markers.
I doubt any club owner wants to get embroiled in that.
My feeling last time in the "pink" clubs was that things are so self-defined that even the more liberal restaurants don't even have separate bathrooms anymore, just private cubicles.

Then there was a question of women's only gyms - also gone in my vicinity (and there were no male only gyms), although we still have separate locker-rooms, and most of the genders pretty much ignore and move past each other on the floor. It's a mixed segregation of sorts.
Ladies' nights? Also gone, although strip-clubs with naked women only remain open, and have perhaps stolen that piece of the pie (although they admit both genders, but at different entry fees).

Now what makes me wonder, this one pub/restaurant in our area says no "vests".
This means a sleeveless top (even if it's a very nice one in 40 degrees' heat), but they only apply this to male customers.
The women are sitting about, and even serving basically there in their bra-straps.
That I think is unconstitutional, and if I was a really vindictive character, I'd write to the Gender Commission of SA about it.
And I think I will win - that place will either have to ban sleeveless tops for both genders, or allow them for both genders.

But no, you can't practice apartheid or Jim Crow in business as you like, and the same should apply to gender.
Of course I haven't done it - I'd rather go where me and vest are welcome, but I know theoretically I could.

But what was amusing to me most was an often advertised self-defense class that was always advertised for "ladies" only.
It's like a Saturday afternoon thing in a church-hall once a month, at a low fee.
And last month I saw a group photo of it in session, and it was basically mostly dudes!
And this time, for the first time the caption read: "For ladies, but if you're a guy you won't be shown the door".
I'm thinking, for R200 per person, I'm sure guys won't be shown the door!


edit on 3-12-2019 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

Just on my last paragraph, regarding the self-defense course for ladies, but mainly dudes show up.
You know, I don't blame these guys, where else must they learn it these days?
No more army, no more boot-camps for youngsters, dads are on the beer or brandy-and-coke in their spare time.
Too unemployed or underemployed to join a proper martial arts school (it's not cheap).
Men facing massive violence too every day, and if you're not a "rugger-bugger" type in high-school it's very difficult for less sporty males.

And yet, you have this whisper in your ear as a male: you must be able to protect yourself and your family.
None of the training of the old traditions, but those expectations haven't left.

So, I feel for those guys.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The irony is, they took it down to censor the meme, but ended up making it go viral. LOLOLOLOL



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: DBCowboy

The irony is, they took it down to censor the meme, but ended up making it go viral. LOLOLOLOL


It happens near every time, especially with music.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: DBCowboy

The irony is, they took it down to censor the meme, but ended up making it go viral. LOLOLOLOL


It happens near every time, especially with music.




happened with the trump presidency too.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: DBCowboy

The irony is, they took it down to censor the meme, but ended up making it go viral. LOLOLOLOL


It happens near every time, especially with music.




happened with the trump presidency too.

Quite possibly true!!



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Which is why we can't FOR A SECOND, allow any movement towards the banning, the censoring, the legislation towards hate speech.


No movement toward limiting hate speech? So, you have a thing for 'hate speech' ?



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy


www.thegatewaypundit.com... alls-it-hate-speech/

The picture above was banned by Facebook for hate speech. It's in the link provided above.

This is not a thread on Facebook though. We've all been through this. Facebook can ban anyone they want, they can censor whomever they want because they are free to do so.

This is on how the definition of "hate speech" is changing.

As a proponent of free speech, even hate speech, I've had to defend Nazi's for their freedom to say what they say, I've defended the leftists for "wishing" that Trump would be assassinated.

It's stuff like that, I'd consider "hate speech". Not something I agree with, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it. (attributed to someone)

But when something gets banned for "hate speech" shouldn't it be hateful?

Or is this, the new definition of hate speech by the left?


The hypocrasy of this post is staggering.

This is the new "right wing." Now you're crying and denying a private entity/business's right to do as they damn well please with their product, which has ZERO effect on you.

Did you create Facebook? Is it your business? Why not just let the marketplace decide then. LOL. What are your actual values?



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: VeeTNA
a reply to: DBCowboy


Which is why we can't FOR A SECOND, allow any movement towards the banning, the censoring, the legislation towards hate speech.


No movement toward limiting hate speech? So, you have a thing for 'hate speech' ?


Yep.




top topics



 
66
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join