|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 10:26:35 GMT -5
It seems that when you accuse a business of "racism", you actually have to prove it.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:39:29 GMT -5
How were they able to tell facts from lies?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 18:28:54 GMT -5
How were they able to tell facts from lies?
That's actually easy when you're not a Postmodernist. 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:46:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 10:47:19 GMT -5
Red Herring.
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. The government didn't bring any charges. And the jury was not made up of government bureaucrats. Juries are selected from private citizens.
The fact of the case was that students, faculty, and administrators of Oberlin College tried to harm a business with lies. The Jury of private citizens agreed.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:41:17 GMT -5
Red Herring.
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. The government didn't bring any charges. And the jury was not made up of government bureaucrats. Juries are selected from private citizens.
The fact of the case was that students, faculty, and administrators of Oberlin College tried to harm a business with lies. The Jury of private citizens agreed. Bob
So you're saying the justice system is not part of the government? It sounds like you are.
Freedom of Speech means that the government shouldn't ban speech just because it doesn't like it.
It doesn't matter how the government tries to ban speech.
You know who else let "private citizens" decide what speech to silence? Hitler.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:24:16 GMT -5
Red Herring. This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. The government didn't bring any charges. And the jury was not made up of government bureaucrats. Juries are selected from private citizens. The fact of the case was that students, faculty, and administrators of Oberlin College tried to harm a business with lies. The Jury of private citizens agreed. So you're saying the justice system is not part of the government? It sounds like you are. Yes! Juries are not really part of the government. They are private citizens who are temporarily put together to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. Or in Civil cases, to decide for the plaintiff or the defendant. No. Freedom of Speech means the government is prohibited from banning speech. Yeah, sure. The German people spontaneously rose up all by themselves to ban speech without any interference from the Nazis. Yeah. Right. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 14:11:36 GMT -5
So you're saying the justice system is not part of the government? It sounds like you are. Yes! Juries are not really part of the government. They are private citizens who are temporarily put together to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. Or in Civil cases, to decide for the plaintiff or the defendant. Are courts of justice part of the government, yes or no? And clearly the government is not prohibited from banning speech. Juries don't convene spontaneously, either. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 15:00:19 GMT -5
Yes! Juries are not really part of the government. They are private citizens who are temporarily put together to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. Or in Civil cases, to decide for the plaintiff or the defendant. Are courts of justice part of the government, yes or no? The court of justice did not give the verdict. The jury composed of private citizens did. The jurors were merely providing a temporary service for the government. That's why the jury system was set up to begin with. How did the government "ban speech?" The College was simply ordered to pay money to compensate the bakery for the harm that the college caused by telling lies.
In the case of libel or slander, Truth is considered a valid defense.
That's right. But juries are not organized by whipping people into a frenzy with hate speech against the Jews. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 5:40:27 GMT -5
Do you think that child rape is wrong, yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 16, 2019 11:01:35 GMT -5
Do you think that child rape is wrong, yes or no? That's way off the topic here, but I will answer it.
Yes. I think that child rape is wrong under all circumstances, in all societies and in any period of history.
Do you agree?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:31:40 GMT -5
Are courts of justice part of the government, yes or no? The court of justice did not give the verdict. The jury composed of private citizens did. The jurors were merely providing a temporary service for the government. That's why the jury system was set up to begin with. So when a jury is being convened, then it's not a court trial all of a sudden and any verdict is not a verdict reached in a court of law? Where is your supporting evidence for that claim? Being ordered to pay a fine is not censorship?
But we already established that juries cannot determine whether a claim is true or not. Only what action is to be taken by the court.Correct, juries are organized by the government, not by private citizens engaging in freedom of speech in the free marketplace of ideas. So a jury is actually more dangerous because it carries the force of the law, instead of being simple private citizens acting on their own beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 15:06:25 GMT -5
The court of justice did not give the verdict. The jury composed of private citizens did. The jurors were merely providing a temporary service for the government. That's why the jury system was set up to begin with. So when a jury is being convened, then it's not a court trial all of a sudden and any verdict is not a verdict reached in a court of law? Where is your supporting evidence for that claim? Since I never made that claim, I don't have to provide any evidence for it. The fine was for damages caused and proved in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. How is that "censorship?" That's right. Juries do not decide "Truth" at all. They only decide what has been demonstrated to them Beyond a Reasonable Doubt during that particular trial. That's why there is a process to appeal the jury's verdict. No one ever claimed that juries determine "the Truth." Wrong. Juries are chosen BY BOTH SIDES. The defense lawyer and the government lawyer both have equal say in who sits on the jury. In a Civil Case, both side also have equal say as to who sits on that jury. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:22:57 GMT -5
So when a jury is being convened, then it's not a court trial all of a sudden and any verdict is not a verdict reached in a court of law? Where is your supporting evidence for that claim? Since I never made that claim, I don't have to provide any evidence for it. Indeed, there is no evidence that it isn't the government that enacts a court decision, nor is there evidence that courts of laws that hold jury trials aren't part of the government. They had to pay a fine for speaking, the intent being a chilling effect on their speech. That's one of many methods of suppressing speech. Except you just did: "They only decide what has been demonstrated to them Beyond a Reasonable Doubt during that particular trial."They decide whether anything that has been demonstrated in trial is true. So they do decide whether what's presented to them is true. In other words, truth is determined by vote. I didn't say "chosen", I said "organized". Are you saying that private citizens organize juries all by themselves? If so, how would they even need a government for their trial? You are assuming that courts of law are part of the government, aren't you. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 18, 2019 13:32:20 GMT -5
Since I never made that claim, I don't have to provide any evidence for it. Indeed, there is no evidence that it isn't the government that enacts a court decision, nor is there evidence that courts of laws that hold jury trials aren't part of the government. Your point being...? The college had to pay a fine for harming people with lies. Had the college and the student demonstrators shown that they told the truth, there would have been no penalty at all.  Absolutely not. The jury only concludes that they have been convinced or that they have not been convinced. There is no mention of "Truth" when the jury delivers a verdict. In a civil trial (such as this one) the government is only there to see that the legal rules are obeyed. The jury consists of private citizens who agree to volunteer their time. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 0:45:53 GMT -5
Indeed, there is no evidence that it isn't the government that enacts a court decision, nor is there evidence that courts of laws that hold jury trials aren't part of the government. Your point being...? Courts are part of the government. Are you saying that words can literally hurt people? That sounds like claims of "hate speech" that communist nazi liberals use to censor free speech. But that just leads to governments deciding which speech they like and which speech they want to see banned. So what you are basically saying is that the college had to pay a fine because the court (i.e. the government) didn't like their speech and wanted to shut them up. Both public colleges and courts of law are part of the government, and with the government it always comes down to whom the government bureaucrats like more. Exactly, saying that your defense is the truth is just a very skillful attempt at blowing smoke up people's asses. There is no such thing as truth in a court of law, only convincing claims and less convincing ones, as the government would be incapable of recognizing truth to begin with and would just go with whoever ingratiates themselves to the government. In a civil trial (such as this one) the government is only there to see that the legal rules are obeyed. The jury consists of private citizens who agree to volunteer their time. Bob [/quote]So American courts aren't part of the government then, they are just convened spontaneously by private citizens? What exactly is the point of a government, then, when every question of the law can be easily solved through spontaneous private citizen courts? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 11:55:52 GMT -5
Courts are part of the government. But the court doesn't reach a verdict. Only a jury of private citizens can reach a verdict. "Hate Speech" can only make a person feel bad. The libel and slander from Oberlin College caused this business to loose income. That is actual financial harm. What "government bureaucrats are you talking about? The government didn't issue a verdict. A jury of private citizens did. Once again, It was a jury of private citizens who came in with the verdict, not the government. In Civil cases, the government is only there to make sure legal rules are upheld. The government does NOT pronounce a verdict. The government provides the organization. The jury of private citizens provides the verdict. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 15:19:37 GMT -5
Courts are part of the government. But the court doesn't reach a verdict. Only a jury of private citizens can reach a verdict. So the American justice system is privately run by private citizens, and not part of the government? Or is it part of the government? Which is it, Bob? LOL. There are plenty of cases where people have literally killed themselves due to sustained harassment. If somebody fails to run a business properly, they aren't committing "self harm", and if they lose customers to the competition, they aren't being "harmed" either. What you call "slander" is just the libertarian version of hate speech - an excuse to shut down speech you don't like. Sure, "private citizens" that just so happen to reach a verdict to suppress speech that government bureaucrats don't like. Courts are government. If courts suppress speech, then that's government censorship, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 18:31:40 GMT -5
But the court doesn't reach a verdict. Only a jury of private citizens can reach a verdict. So the American justice system is privately run by private citizens, and not part of the government? Or is it part of the government? Which is it, Bob? It's a mixture. The best of both worlds.  Notice how you said "harassment" and not "speech?" Harassment is illegal. Speech is not. Yes. And in that case there is no libel or slander. And no one to sue. You can't shut that speech down though unless you can prove it was false. But the court didn't "suppress speech" at all. It simply awarded payment to the plaintiff for the financial damages caused by the defendant. Had the college proved that their statements were true, there would have been an acquittal. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 12:00:37 GMT -5
You can't shut that speech down though unless you can prove it was false. So what you are saying is that it is okay to shut down speech if it contains incorrect statements? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 21, 2019 13:12:25 GMT -5
You can't shut that speech down though unless you can prove it was false. So what you are saying is that it is okay to shut down speech if it contains incorrect statements?
Not at all.
This wasn't merely incorrect speech. What the students and college officials at Oberlin did was make false and defamatory statements with the intent of causing harm.
It's the intent to cause harm that is the point here, not merely the fact that the claims were false.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 19:26:56 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that it is okay to shut down speech if it contains incorrect statements? Not at all.
This wasn't merely incorrect speech. What the students and college officials at Oberlin did was make false and defamatory statements with the intent of causing harm.
Is that a reason for the government to get involved and censor speech? The idea that speech causes "harm" is used by leftist liberal Nazi communists to censor free speech as "hate speech".
Are you saying that they are correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 21, 2019 21:03:56 GMT -5
Not at all. This wasn't merely incorrect speech. What the students and college officials at Oberlin did was make false and defamatory statements with the intent of causing harm. Is that a reason for the government to get involved and censor speech? Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated that the government censored any speech. In this case, the speech was Slander and it did cause financial harm. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 23:34:46 GMT -5
Is that a reason for the government to get involved and censor speech? Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated that the government censored any speech. Here is the demonstration: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 23:38:15 GMT -5
In this case, the speech was Slander and it did cause financial harm. Sure, "financial harm", let's go with that. So government censorship is okay when the government thinks speech causes "financial harm". Liberal NaziLeftists claim that "hate speech" causes harm, is that less or more severe than the harm caused by "slander"? Please explain why. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 2:09:56 GMT -5
Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated that the government censored any speech. Here is the demonstration:
I'm sorry. I read the whole article over and I didn't find the part where you claim the government censored speech. Could you please point it out to me. Thanks in advance.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 2:16:25 GMT -5
In this case, the speech was Slander and it did cause financial harm. Sure, "financial harm", let's go with that. So government censorship is okay when the government thinks speech causes "financial harm". What speech was "censored?" None that I could see. In fact, neither the plaintiffs or the defendants mentioned censorship at all. So where is this "censorship" you're talking about? And where exactly is this "harm" that hate speech causes? By contrast, that bakery did suffer actual financial harm because of the college's lies. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 11:23:11 GMT -5
Sure, "financial harm", let's go with that. So government censorship is okay when the government thinks speech causes "financial harm". What speech was "censored?" None that I could see. In fact, neither the plaintiffs or the defendants mentioned censorship at all. So where is this "censorship" you're talking about? And where exactly is this "harm" that hate speech causes? By contrast, that bakery did suffer actual financial harm because of the college's lies. Bob LOL, so when my company is in the red I only need to claim that I have been "harmed" by somebody talking crap about me and call for censorship? Is that how libertarians envision "freedom of speech"? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 11:59:41 GMT -5
What speech was "censored?" None that I could see. In fact, neither the plaintiffs or the defendants mentioned censorship at all. So where is this "censorship" you're talking about? And where exactly is this "harm" that hate speech causes? By contrast, that bakery did suffer actual financial harm because of the college's lies. Bob LOL, so when my company is in the red I only need to claim that I have been "harmed" by somebody talking crap about me and call for censorship? Is that how libertarians envision "freedom of speech"?
This company was successful for decades. No evidence was presented at the trial to show otherwise. Unless you have some. Do you?
For some reason you keep forgetting that a claim of being harmed is not enough. You actually have to demonstrate that the lies told about you actually did cause harm. The bakery owners did just that to an impartial jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, where is it?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 15:15:11 GMT -5
LOL, so when my company is in the red I only need to claim that I have been "harmed" by somebody talking crap about me and call for censorship? Is that how libertarians envision "freedom of speech"? This company was successful for decades. No evidence was presented at the trial to show otherwise. Unless you have some. Do you? Do you have any evidence that speech causes financial losses? No? Yea, I thought so. Yes, convincing ten easily-bamboozled men is certainly objective proof. Since when are the opinions of random men off the street a valid reason to shut down free speech? But to you it's all okay because government censorship hit people you don't like. And censoring people one doesn't like is what libertarian "freedom of speech" is all about, apparently. |
|
Absolutely not. The jury only concludes that they have been convinced or that they have not been convinced. There is no mention of "Truth" when the jury delivers a verdict.