• 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

Hercules56 said:
Transgender ID is not protected by the Civil Rights Act, therefore they can face discrimination in employment.
Click to expand...
"Free speech" available to US employers has some odd and unfair consequences, doesn't it. This would not be accepted in most reasonable countries. Including the "Lost freedom of speech" UK who seem to put a premium on treating their citizens equally. Remind me, where is it written "All men are created equal...."
 
Emily's Cat said:
Allow me to help you out:



Your argument appears to be tautological and undefined - it's racist for a person to display your own nation's flag when the person is a racist and is promoting their racism, and you can tell that it's racist of them to display their own flag because they're racists.

At this point, you've provided no description or elaboration or even a hypothetical scenario that indicates when Alex's display of your flag is racist, but Sam's display is not.
Click to expand...
Conclusion: Waving your national flag is racist when the observer has already judged you to be a racist, and it's not racist when the observer has already judged you to not be a racist. If the observer has not already judged you at all, then he does not know whether or not you are a racist.
This is known as Schrodinger's Flag.
 
Steve said:
"Free speech" available to US employers has some odd and unfair consequences, doesn't it. This would not be accepted in most reasonable countries. Including the "Lost freedom of speech" UK who seem to put a premium on treating their citizens equally. Remind me, where is it written "All men are created equal...."
Click to expand...
Which as you know is not actually part of US law.

Regardless, do you think its fair that private business owners and employers have NO control over the speech of their employees and customers? I do not.

I dont think its right that in Britain I can walk into a store wearing a t-shirt that says "◊◊◊◊ yo mamma" and there is nothing the store owner can do about it.
 
Hercules56 said:
Which as you know is not actually part of US law.

Regardless, do you think its fair that private business owners and employers have NO control over the speech of their employees and customers? I do not.

I dont think its right that in Britain I can walk into a store wearing a t-shirt that says "◊◊◊◊ yo mamma" and there is nothing the store owner can do about it.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that's the situation?
 
LondonJohn said:
In England & Wales, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation. And as such, it's a criminal offence for a person to demonstrate support for Hamas (or for any other organisation that's similarly proscribed in the UK).

A case in point:, the UK Govt recently (around a couple of months ago IIRC) proscribed a group called Palestine Action as terrorist. Since then, pro-Palestine protesters who don't mind being arrested have been bringing to demonstrations simple signs saying "I support Palestine Action". And probably hundreds of them by now have indeed been arrested. But how the courts will deal with these levels of disobedience is - I think - yet to be determined.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this was meant to be a reply to me as it seems something of a non-sequiter in response to what I posted.
 
Okay. I would like the Free Speech Absolutists in this thread to ponder the following hypothetical. I know, I don't usually like engaging in hypothetical games, but I think this one is illustrative.

Imagine, if you will, the entire history of Europe from the turn of the 20th century is the same, except for one thing. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, raised the Nazi party to power, and made many, many speeches about how the Jews were the source of all of Germany's problems. However, he never actually implemented the Final Solution and never murdered six million people. Auschwitz and Birkenau and the others didn't exist, there were no gas chambers, no Holocaust.

Would all of his words be any more acceptable?
 
What a weird question. It’s almost like you didn’t know that Hitler’s speech was suppressed by the government.

“Late you come, but still you come”.
 
Doesn't matter. I'm asking if Mein Kampf and his speeches would have been acceptable free speech if they hadn't led to the Holocaust. Would people here be defending his right to have said the things he said?

I say no. They were still monstrous. But notice that you can still buy Mein Kampf on Amazon, so I'm not seeing much suppression right now.
 
arthwollipot said:
Doesn't matter. I'm asking if Mein Kampf and his speeches would have been acceptable free speech if they hadn't led to the Holocaust. Would people here be defending his right to have said the things he said?

I say no. They were still monstrous. But notice that you can still buy Mein Kampf on Amazon, so I'm not seeing much suppression right now.
Click to expand...
His speeches did not create the horrible conditions in Germany that led to the Holocaust being possible.
 
arthwollipot said:
Doesn't matter. I'm asking if Mein Kampf and his speeches would have been acceptable free speech if they hadn't led to the Holocaust. Would people here be defending his right to have said the things he said?

I say no. They were still monstrous. But notice that you can still buy Mein Kampf on Amazon, so I'm not seeing much suppression right now.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you mean by “acceptable”. Do you mean legal? Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf should be prohibited? Or do you just mean not stuff that polite company approves of?
 
Ziggurat said:
I don’t understand what you mean by “acceptable”. Do you mean legal? Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf should be prohibited? Or do you just mean not stuff that polite company approves of?
Click to expand...
I can't believe my hypothetical was this difficult. If you're finding it too hard, feel free to skip the question.
 
To be fair, it wasn't Mein Kampf that caused Hitler rise to power. It is widely agreed that from a philosophical and literary viewpoint, it is a laughable load of old drivel. Would normally have sunk without trace but for the fact of Hitler's notoriety. Hitler's power lay in the fact he was the consumate politician, worked and worked and worked on his oratory skills, plus the economical position of galloping inflation. Luck, chance, advantage.

(Writing books and spouting nonsense has never been censored in the UK, although there was a 'Section 28' ban on gay writings at one time - and even DH Lawrence was 'banned' (Lady Chatterley's Lover) - but not because of 'free speech' more to do with moral issues of the day.)
 
Vixen said:
To be fair, it wasn't Mein Kampf that caused Hitler rise to power. It is widely agreed that from a philosophical and literary viewpoint, it is a laughable load of old drivel. Would normally have sunk without trace but for the fact of Hitler's notoriety. Hitler's power lay in the fact he was the consumate politician, worked and worked and worked on his oratory skills, plus the economical position of galloping inflation. Luck, chance, advantage.

(Writing books and spouting nonsense has never been censored in the UK, although there was a 'Section 28' ban on gay writings at one time - and even DH Lawrence was 'banned' (Lady Chatterley's Lover) - but not because of 'free speech' more to do with moral issues of the day.)
Click to expand...
Absent the almost complete collapse of German society and economy, Hitler would have never rose to power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom