• 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.

David Icke's Visa Cancelled

Lambchops said:
Lol, people on a "skeptic" forum defending David Icke.

This is Nimitz class irony. "Buh muh freeze peach"
Click to expand...

If your democracy is so weak that it will fall because one nutcase holds a talk, your democracy has no right to exist.

If your system of society cannot come up with one person who can offer up a better argument than this nutcase, you really need to examine, probably discard, your system.

Dictators control speech and thought. This nutcase isn't the wannabe dictator, the people trying to control what people can say, hear, and think are.
 
smartcooky said:
Maybe I should rephrase that - how are non-totalitarian governments that allow free speech going ban "virtual speakers"?
Click to expand...
As a thought experiment and a tad devil's advocate, what happens if a party campaigns on a manifesto which includes such a policy and is fairly elected and it implements the wishes of the electorate? Is there anything wrong with that? It's not preventing its own citizens from publishing such stuff, just blocking non Australian material.
 
lionking said:
I walk a little taller and straighter every time someone from the US describes Australians as childish. My day is full of joy when people led by a buffoon with the emotional control of my 3 year old granddaughter think we are childish.
Click to expand...
That's very sad lionking, I hope your grand daughter gets help with her delayed development.
 
qayak said:
Yup, gots to protect da people from thinkin' the wrong thinks.
Click to expand...
You didn't read what I wrote, did you.

Icke is welcome to video-conference from the UK every day, all day, to any venue in Australia. He can talk to anyone he likes about whatever he thinks is relevant. No censorship of his silly "thinks" involved. He's far more likely to reach many more people that way than with public appearances.

But he won't tell you that. Because censorship is nothing to do with his outrage. Income is, and an all-paid-for sunny holiday. Simple as that.
 
Lambchops said:
Would you welcome a speaker from ISIS setting up a tour in your country?
Click to expand...

Here we could discuss the moral compasses of people who equate a guy with nutty views who speaks out against violence and racism to the worst barbarians, murderers and terrorists the world has ever seen. If David Icke is a 10 on the scale of insanity then it looks like we need to recalibrate.
 
Lambchops said:
Lol, people on a "skeptic" forum defending David Icke.

This is Nimitz class irony. "Buh muh freeze peach"
Click to expand...

Free speech applies to nuts too. If the principle is worth anything, it applies to people we disagree with as much as it does with those we agree with. Otherwise, as someone said, the principle is not a principle but rather it is a hobby.
 
Darat said:
As a thought experiment and a tad devil's advocate, what happens if a party campaigns on a manifesto which includes such a policy and is fairly elected and it implements the wishes of the electorate? Is there anything wrong with that? It's not preventing its own citizens from publishing such stuff, just blocking non Australian material.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I would say we should at least argue against it, as people are doing now.

Beyond that, I think there is a fair argument for saying that certain constitutional rights ought to exist even when the majority are against it.
 
angrysoba said:
Free speech applies to nuts too. If the principle is worth anything, it applies to people we disagree with as much as it does with those we agree with. Otherwise, as someone said, the principle is not a principle but rather it is a hobby.
Click to expand...

Do you find racial vilification acceptable? Because I don’t.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Icke is welcome to video-conference from the UK every day, all day, to any venue in Australia. He can talk to anyone he likes about whatever he thinks is relevant. No censorship of his silly "thinks" involved. He's far more likely to reach many more people that way than with public appearances.

But he won't tell you that. Because censorship is nothing to do with his outrage. Income is, and an all-paid-for sunny holiday. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

So what? It's still censorship. Censorship is not just the complete banning of speech. It is also doing anything that makes it difficult for anyone to say what they want when they want, or compelling them to say things they do not agree with.
 
lionking said:
Do you find racial vilification acceptable? Because I don’t.
Click to expand...

Banning someone from saying something, or for saying something, doesn't get rid of the idea. Allowing someone to express an idea, and having a better argument, will.

It's one of the reasons Carl Sagan was against Holocaust denial laws. When you drive evil ideas underground they fester and grow but if you drag them out into the light and discuss them, bad ideas go away.
 
angrysoba said:
Beyond that, I think there is a fair argument for saying that certain constitutional rights ought to exist even when the majority are against it.
Click to expand...

That's the entire point of a constitution.
 
qayak said:
Banning someone from saying something, or for saying something, doesn't get rid of the idea. Allowing someone to express an idea, and having a better argument, will.

It's one of the reasons Carl Sagan was against Holocaust denial laws. When you drive evil ideas underground they fester and grow but if you drag them out into the light and discuss them, bad ideas go away.
Click to expand...
It's like the "war" on drugs. It doesn't matter if the policy is effective or not as long as we send the "right" message.
 
Wow, they let me in but not him! I just got back from Aus/NZ.

Personally I have no issue with countries keeping out riffraff. Icke is a nutbar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom