• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

arthwollipot said:
I believe that such people have the right to a fair trial when they break the law, according to Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unrestricted hate speech violates Articles 3, 5, 6, 12, arguably 14, 19, and probably 27 of the same Declaration.
Click to expand...
You CANNOT be serious.

Hate speech and dehumanizing speech does not in ANY way violate any of the articles of the UDHR.

Seriously, folks need to grow up, grow thicker skin, and learn not to be hurt soo easily.

Criminalizing hurtful and offensive speech is Authoritarianism.

There is NO human right to not be hurt and offended just by words.

Otherwise we will become a world of cowardly, spineless, shivering snowflakes. Unable to function at the first hurtful word, damaging our delicate feewings.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
You CANNOT be serious.

Hate speech and dehumanizing speech does not in ANY way violate any of the articles of the UDHR.

Seriously, folks need to grow up, grow thicker skin, and learn not to be hurt soo easily.
Click to expand...
This is hilarious. E.g., DINO.
Hercules56 said:
Criminalizing hurtful and offensive speech is Authoritarianism.

There is NO human right to not be hurt and offended just by words.

Otherwise we will become a world of cowardly, spineless, shivering snowflakes. Unable to function at the first hurtful word, damaging our delicate feewings.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, DINO.
 
Hercules56 said:
There is NO human right to not be hurt and offended just by words.
Click to expand...
There you go again. We're not talking about people being "offended". We're talking about hate speech. The kind of speech that encourages violence. The kind of speech that creates an underclass of people who are seen as less than human and can therefore be demeaned and degraded without consequence.

We're so far past "offended" that branding it as such is offensive.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, words are just words. They cannot actually hurt you unless you let them.

The way to deal with hateful and offensive words is through education. Not prison.
Click to expand...
You keep ignoring the fact that is was *exactly* this attitude that allowed 'Der Sturmer' and similar newspapers to keep up a 15+ year smear campaign against Jews and 'the left' while at the same time promising totally impossible easy solutions that swayed enough voters to put the Nazi's in power in the 1930s.

So yes, unchecked words CAN and HAVE led to hurting people. Europe learned that lesson, even though the Russian propaganda machine and the far right christo-fascist billionaires from the US would like those laws removed so they can repeat the event.
 
Abooga said:
In Spain we also have religious vilification laws, but I don´t think we should. There´s nothing special about religious feelings, compared to non religious, that requires them to be protected. Why protect religious feelings and not atheist feelings? My atheist feelings are hurt every time I hear religious ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, should religious people be prevented from speaking about their religion in public? (maybe this deserves a separate thread)
Click to expand...
An athiest saying there is no god could be accused of Hate Speech under laws protecting religious feelings.
A lot of hypocrisy here. They condemn...quite rightly....Trump; attack on free speech, but support supressing if it is speech they do not aprove of.
Speaking of hate speech, I could make a cast the some of the contemptous terms for Americans in theis thread could be hate speech.
And that his fuss took place of a eff Islam remark shows how some people cut Islam slack they do not cut other religoins.
 
arthwollipot said:
There you go again. We're not talking about people being "offended". We're talking about hate speech. The kind of speech that encourages violence. The kind of speech that creates an underclass of people who are seen as less than human and can therefore be demeaned and degraded without consequence.

We're so far past "offended" that branding it as such is offensive.
Click to expand...

Helen said:
I do not think that the world needs more thick-skinned people, it already has a surfeit. Sensitivity and empathy for others seem in short supply, though.
Click to expand...
And I think the world has too many thin skinned people who are willing to take away basic freedoms out of fear of "offedning somebody".
 
No one here seems to think that it's about offending anyone. No one here seems to think that we should get rid of free speech. But all freedoms have restrictions, and free speech is certainly not an exception (not even in the US), we're just not agreeing with the free speech fundamentalists, since we are aware of the very real and extensive, and horrifying, damage that could be done, if there are no restrictions at all.
 
arthwollipot said:
Spoken like someone who has never been hurt by words. Perhaps like someone who was doing the hurting.
Click to expand...
I have been called a lot of disgusting things in life (and indeed, some on this very forum) including racist, bigot, tranny-basher, ignorant, liar, conspiracy theorist, heartless, retard, honky, bastard, wanker, ◊◊◊◊ and many more.
Impact on me? None, because I have a thick skin. I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what anyone calls me... to me, they're just hurty words that I ignore.

If you're one of these people who runs off to the cops every time someone calls you a hurty word online, or who pulls out one of your pre-printed "Dear Editor" letterheads when you think you perceive some minor wrongdoing, stop being a wimp. Harden the ◊◊◊◊ up!!

Words are not actions, they're just words They can only harm you if you let them.
 
Helen said:
No one here seems to think that it's about offending anyone. No one here seems to think that we should get rid of free speech. But all freedoms have restrictions, and free speech is certainly not an exception (not even in the US), we're just not agreeing with the free speech fundamentalists, since we are aware of the very real and extensive, and horrifying, damage that could be done, if there are no restrictions at all.
Click to expand...
Who here is a "free speech fundamentalist" (do you mean "absolutist"?)
 
smartcooky said:
I have been called a lot of disgusting things in life (and indeed, some on this very forum) including racist, bigot, tranny-basher, ignorant, liar, conspiracy theorist, heartless, retard, honky, bastard, wanker, ◊◊◊◊ and many more.
Impact on me? None, because I have a thick skin. I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what anyone calls me... to me, they're just hurty words that I ignore.

If you're one of these people who runs off to the cops every time someone calls you a hurty word online, or who pulls out one of your pre-printed "Dear Editor" letterheads when you think you perceive some minor wrongdoing, stop being a wimp. Harden the ◊◊◊◊ up!!

Words are not actions, they're just words They can only harm you if you let them.
Click to expand...
Absolute rubbish. a sexist, racist, bigot, tranny-basher, etcetera, is often struttingly proud of being so, and, in addition, love being identified as such. 'Hurty' words can seriously damage a person, especially young children. An ethnic British Pakistani in the GUARDIAN revealed how when his dad was young his classmates pretended he was invisible because of his ethnicity, wouldn't talk to him or acknowledge him and every night his parents had to witness his crying his eyes out in anguish. So maybe the parents should have just told him to snap out of it and, "stop being a wimp. Harden the ◊◊◊◊ up!"!
 
As I have said before, my position on free speech is that only actual incitement to violence should be restricted. Insulting people and using hurty words should not. I look to cases like "Brandenburg v Ohio" (speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action") and and "Schenck v. United States" (the clear and present danger standard) as examples of the only types of speech that should be restricted. The imminent, the likely and the clear and present danger are the most important parts. Saying "grab your gun, and go shoot David B. Smith; Attorney at Law" satisfies the standard for incitement to violence, and is speech that should not be free, but holding up a placard that says "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" does not meet the criteria. Everyone should be free to make a statement like this.

Anyone should be allowed to call extreme right wing people white supremacists, call Trump a moron, call a transwoman a man, ignore pronouns, misgender anyone they like, call a religious person a deluded god botherer, call a woman a bitch, call a homosexual person a faggot, call a white person white trash or redneck, and call an Asian person a slopehead. I would criticize people for calling them such things, but I will still defend the speaker's right to say it. Words do not cause harm, only actions do... if people are offended by a post online, they can block the poster and don't read their posts - if they are offended by something someone says on TV, or radio, they can change the bloody station. NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO READ IT.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 11.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
As I have said before, my position on free speech is that only actual incitement to violence should be restricted. Insulting people and using hurty words should not. I look to cases like "Brandenburg v Ohio" (speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action") and and "Schenck v. United States" (the clear and present danger standard) as examples of the only types of speech that should be restricted. The imminent, the likely and the clear and present danger are the most important parts. Saying "grab your gun, and go shoot David B. Smith; Attorney at Law" satisfies the standard for incitement to violence, and is speech that should not be free, but holding up a placard that says "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" does not meet the criteria. Everyone should be free to make a statement like this.

Anyone should be allowed to call extreme right wing people white supremacists, call Trump a moron, call a transwoman a man, ignore pronouns, misgender anyone they like, call a religious person a deluded god botherer, call a woman a bitch, call a homosexual person a faggot, call a white person white trash or redneck, and call an Asian person a slopehead. I would criticize people for calling them such things, but I will still defend the speaker's right to say it. Words do not cause harm, only actions do... if people are offended by a post online, they can block the poster and don't read their posts - if they are offended by something someone says on TV, or radio, they can change the bloody station. NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO READ IT.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 11.
Click to expand...
Do you really think extreme right wingers, god botherers or white supremacists mind being called out as such? Trump doesn't care if you call him a moron, he thinks he's POTUS and can do what he likes and his cult think he's the funniest guy ever, with his disgusting racism, misogyny and mocking the disabled. No, people should not be allowed to get away with calling little children 'spastics' or 'cripples' because they are disabled, and has nothing to do with whether violence is intended. Quite right a dozen cops turn up to arrest 'Tommy Robinson' or the Tate Brothers when they get off the plane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ISTM that people equate being called a racist, sexist or bigot as being of the same magnitude of insult as being on the receiving end of their behaviour. Usually, what they really mean is, they are - rightly or wrongly - indignant that their stated comment has been taken as knee-jerk mindless prejudice, when they had never intended it as such but that they had given their comment serious consideration. However, bigots, homophobes, transphobes, racists/sexists do not actually suffer a psychic injury by rightly or wrongly being called out as such, a psychic injury which they themselves inflict when, for example, they refuse entry to a job or a social club to a person based on such designated personal characteristics. So their angry response, 'Are you calling me a racist/sexist/whatever?' is taken to be as being of equivalent offensiveness. For example, Farage taking umbrage at Starmer's carefully calling Farage's policy of mass deportation as 'racist' (careful, in that Starmer took care not to ascribe Farage himself with that term).

I mean, come on, saying,'I've been called a racist, sexist, bigot...etc...and I took it on the chin because do you know what? "Hurty" words can't harm you, just toughen up!' is supposedly exactly the same inherent equivalent insult as being barred from the army because you are transgender or gay or being told that you, as a physically fit high-achieving military female personnel, is not as good as wimpy 'Frat Boy' Hegseth (because he says so) and should be barred from military training forthwith.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
FMF issue deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
I have been called a lot of disgusting things in life (and indeed, some on this very forum) including racist, bigot, tranny-basher, ignorant, liar, conspiracy theorist, heartless, retard, honky, bastard, wanker, ◊◊◊◊ and many more.
Impact on me? None, because I have a thick skin. I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ what anyone calls me... to me, they're just hurty words that I ignore.

If you're one of these people who runs off to the cops every time someone calls you a hurty word online, or who pulls out one of your pre-printed "Dear Editor" letterheads when you think you perceive some minor wrongdoing, stop being a wimp. Harden the ◊◊◊◊ up!!

Words are not actions, they're just words They can only harm you if you let them.
Click to expand...
je répète, with modifications:

But we have it from the renowned authority, our very own Hercules56, among others, that this amounts to nothing more than mere teasing, and it is the fault of the abuse sufferers for letting it bother them.

I can't help but think that many of the abusers rationalize their actions in a similar manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom