• 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

P.J. Denyer said:
So calling for a convicted murderer to get the death sentence is incitement to violence and should be punishable by law?
Click to expand...
Just stop it already.

But nice strawman.

We are now talking about murdering innocent people, absent of any criminal conviction or social misdeads.

Not sentencing someone to death after committing a heinous crime and being convicted by a jury and exhausting the appeal process.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Everything written by the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s until kristallnacht. After that the pretense was dropped.
And the fact that MAGA, Reform, Musk and their ilk write similar articles with the word 'Jew' replaced by 'Transsexual' 'Liberal' 'antifa' or similar should worry you too. Those with the 'I disagree with you, but will defend your right to be antisemitic' attitude vanished behind bars very quickly once the Nazi's came to power.
Click to expand...
I am terribly worried about what Trump and his co-conspirators are saying about immigrants and antifa and the left and people who criticize him, etc.

That doesn't mean we have to abandon the Bill of Rights in order to save it.

The idea that we have to destroy civil rights and human rights in order to preserve them, is a recipe for failure.
 
Hercules56 said:
I am terribly worried about what Trump and his co-conspirators are saying about immigrants and antifa and the left and people who criticize him, etc.

That doesn't mean we have to abandon the Bill of Rights in order to save it.

The idea that we have to destroy civil rights and human rights in order to preserve them, is a recipe for failure.
Click to expand...
It's not a case of destroying human rights, it's about balancing one person's rights against another's. Of course, there will always be people who think their rights and desires trump everyone else's, but most of them eventually grow out of it.
 
Mojo said:
It's not a case of destroying human rights, it's about balancing one person's rights against another's. Of course, there will always be people who think their rights and desires trump everyone else's, but most of them eventually grow out of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and some people here seem to think that the right to not be offended or have their feelings hurt is more important than freedom of speech.

And that is ridiculous.

We should not be wasting police and district attorney resources on investigating and prosecuting people for hurting people's feelings. No matter how rude and hateful the speech might be.
 
Hercules56 said:
Just stop it already.

But nice strawman.

We are now talking about murdering innocent people, absent of any criminal conviction or social misdeads.

Not sentencing someone to death after committing a heinous crime and being convicted by a jury and exhausting the appeal process.
Click to expand...

It's literally what you said. Don't blame me for your not having thought through the implications of your words.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It's literally what you said. Don't blame me for your not having thought through the implications of your words.
Click to expand...
Executing somebody for a crime after they have been convicted by a jury and exhausted the appeals process, it's not what we are talking about.

It is not the same as walking around with a sign saying "murder my next door neighbor!!!"

You can stop now.
 
Hercules56 said:
Executing somebody for a crime after they have been convicted by a jury and exhausted the appeals process, it's not what we are talking about.

It is not the same as walking around with a sign saying "murder my next door neighbor!!!"

You can stop now.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Your words.
 
Each one of us 'censors' our own speech every day. If I walked into my Mum's house and said the word 'fart', I'd get a clip, so essentially I have not got the privilege of 'free speech'.
I accept that, because I love and deeply respect my Mum and her sensibilities, but I choose to be nice, I abide by societal norms and extend that civility outside of my Mum's house.
Regardless of whether I have the right to free speech, It's how I choose to use it.
Have your 'right' and be a ◊◊◊◊ about it, if YOU want.
Isn't it easier if we just be nice, pretend we're in the company of Mum and stop worrying about what 'they' are doing now.
FFS
 
welshdean said:
Each one of us 'censors' our own speech every day. If I walked into my Mum's house and said the word 'fart', I'd get a clip, so essentially I have not got the privilege of 'free speech'.
I accept that, because I love and deeply respect my Mum and her sensibilities, but I choose to be nice, I abide by societal norms and extend that civility outside of my Mum's house.
Regardless of whether I have the right to free speech, It's how I choose to use it.
Have your 'right' and be a ◊◊◊◊ about it, if YOU want.
Isn't it easier if we just be nice, pretend we're in the company of Mum and stop worrying about what 'they' are doing now.
FFS
Click to expand...
We are not talking about community consequences for what you say, we are talking about government overreach in controlling what you say.

You say fart in your mum's house, so your mum delivers the consequences. However, it should not be in the purview of THE GOVERMENT to be sanctioning you for saying "fart" in your mum's house.

ETA: It is somewhat disturbing to see you reference Free Speech as a privilege. Free Speech is a right! This is what separates us from Russia, China and many Islamic countries. Unfortunately, with the abrogation of free speech in some western countries, this difference is beginning to disappear.
 
Last edited:
welshdean said:
Didn't Trump recently proscribe Antifa as a terrorist organisation?
Click to expand...
For the actors, not the cheerleaders.

Eta: here's the Executive Order. it's wording is "anyone acting on behalf of antifa", etc
www.whitehouse.gov

Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization

Section 1. Antifa as a Terrorist Threat. Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Although it does say "individuals associated with antifa", which is a little vague?

Eta2: it says antifa has a definitional objective of overthrowing the government of the United States. So... I guess if that is not your declared objective, you're not antifa, hence in the clear?
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Those with the 'I disagree with you, but will defend your right to be antisemitic' attitude vanished behind bars very quickly once the Nazi's came to power.
Click to expand...
Correct... It was not absolute free speech that led to the Nazi genocide being perpetrated on the Jews, it was the abrogation of Free Speech that led to it. People who spoke against the Nazi order had a habit of being disappeared...
There was a direct line between suppression of free speech and the Holocaust.
 
smartcooky said:
Correct... It was not absolute free speech that led to the Nazi genocide being perpetrated on the Jews, it was the abrogation of Free Speech that led to it. People who spoke against the Nazi order had a habit of being disappeared...
There was a direct line between suppression of free speech and the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
LOL, its not like Weimar Germany was a healthy freedom-loving democratic society that got slowly ruined by evil men who simply abused said freedom in order to eventually destroy it. The reality is much more complicated than that, but folks who want to crack down on freedom in order to preserve it love to falsely cite the Nazis to defend their wish to crackdown on speech they don't like.

Ironic huh?
 
dudalb said:
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".
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm going to say this to everybody. Not singling out any particular person:

If your rebuttal to anything I'm saying includes the word "offend", "offending", "offensive" or any other inflection of that word then you are misrepresenting my argument, being dishonest, and arguing fallaciously. Similarly if you use any inflection of the word "feelings", you are misrepresenting me. You should stop doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom