White Supremacist Terrorism

Extremists love absolutes. This is true whether they are extremists on the left or the right. Either you are for them or you are against them (and anyone who opposes them from either side is a "Nazi".)

- Izzy says that anyone who supports free speech is "supporting Nazis", and anyone who questions feminism "hates women".

- Oralloy says that anyone who criticizes Israel is "supporting Nazis", and anyone who questions Black Lives Matter wants police to die.

Izzy and Oralloy are basically the same... they just occupy opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

You can support Free Speech as a basic human right without "supporting Nazis". I suppose that is the message of this thread.

And Doctor Who.

And again with the insults, so much for civilised discourse.

You've got far more in common with Oralloy, you both support hate speech and gun violence.

I've not attacked supporters of free speech, just supporters of hate speech. You've yet to say why you think Holocaust Denial is so important and why lies are as important as the truth.

When you take that attitude you devalue free speech and turn it into a force of oppression.

Lets take The Protocols of Zion as an example. This was a forged document purporting to document the Jews plans for World Domination. The fact that it's a forgery is beyond dispute. It was put together by Czarist secret police to legitimise various pogroms.

The Nazis then used this document to justify anti Jewish laws and ultimately The Final Solution. This is where your support of hate speech ends, with the Holocaust.

There is no difference between free speech and hate speech. If you only say things that everyone agrees with, there is no need for free speech. Once you start labeling certain ideas to be "hate speech" and restricting them, you end up with an arbitrary line.

In England, books that challenged the glory of the British Empire were once banned... as were books that promoted same sex relationships and anyone criticizing the Queen.

I don't know why you always have to jump to Nazis. The Nazi regime believed that certain ideas were so offensive and so dangerous to civil society that they should be banned. You are the one agreeing with them.

Free Speech means Free Speech. You can't divide ideas into acceptable and inacceptable and call it free speech. This applies to feminists as well as nazis.

There is a huge difference between hate speech and free speech and only the wilfully stupid could suggest otherwise.

I've given an example of hate speech,(The Protocols of Zion,) turning into mass murder, (The Holocaust.)

Now you're full of puff and bluster about "free speech" and how curbing hate speech could lead to all manner of terrible things but you can't give any examples.

Go on then, give an example of how UK anti hate legislation has been misused and why that is so much worse than The Holocaust.

Hate speech is not efined in our B. O. R. Where speech is seprable from anACTION. its punishable.
Think;
Kiddie Porn
Obscenity
Inciting to violence
Libel/Slander (I know , ones written, the other spoken)

The Supreme Court has made several decisions on the above and I really hope they can get off their fat asses and cause the regulation of stuff like these "manifestos" (as a signal to inciting violence) and thus punishable. Its totlly within the 1st Amendment.

Ok then, if the difference between hate speech and free speech is so clear, then where do you draw the line? What you are suggesting is that some government agency, or political ideology should be given the power to mark certain ideas or books as unacceptable and then ban them from public discourse.

The question is how do you draw that line. Or the more important question is who draws that line?

People have claimed the following to be hate speech... and depending on your political ideology you will agree or disagree.

- Criticism of Israel
- Criticism of Hamas
- Support for Abortion Rights
- Opposition to Abortion Rights
- Support for Gay Marriage
- Support for Religious objection laws.

Once you start letting people ban ideas... you can ban any idea. All you have to do is convince a majority of people that this idea (be it opposition to the Monarchy, to LGBT rights, to criticism of imperialism) is dangerous or offensive.

Free Speech is a human right.

I am curious Farmerman. Where would you draw the line for "incitement to violence". Manifestos are used by the left too... and clearly not all manifestos from either side call for violence.

The current standard in the US draws the line at a "clear call for immediate violence".

Where would you draw the line?

Agreed, if anti hate speech legislation was being abused to curb freedom the right would be able to give us examples. The only example I've seen was from Baldimo upset that someone was prosecuted for a load of transphobic abuse.

Hate speech has been legally defined. Give an example of how UK anti hate speech legislation has been misused.

Where would you draw the line? Clearly the Holocaust doesn't faze you so what would?

incitement to violence has been defined and used in court. Im neither a lawyer nor a USSC judge, so my involvement is as one who is goverened by the law, not legislating or adjudicating it. My pay grade is defined within the ""applied sciences"
I suppose you were only asking as an extension of the conversation.

as far as manifestos, the NYT had a few clips and Id say this nut was asking for something like "Helter Skelter"

Yes, it is a pretty clear line. And best of all it avoids having a government or political party censoring ideas.

- You can express any idea, from feminism to racism, no matter who it offends.

- You can't incite violence, no matter which political ideology you hold.

Shouting "Death to the Patriarchy" is protected free speech. Calling people to actually go kill people is not.

Still not answered any questions. Give one example of the UK anti hate speech legislation being misused. Just one.

I've given an example of what hate speech can lead to, (The Holocaust,) your warnings about the need to protect hate speech are somewhat vague. You think something terrible might happen, but you're not sure what, but whatever it is, it's worse than the Holocaust.

That's quite a pithy argument you've got there, how about backing it up with some facts?

Careful Max. Your senility is showing. Comparing Izzy and Olly as the same is a huge overreach.

It was early August of 2016 in the run up to the Presidential election when Oralloy called for those pushing for restrictions on guns be put to death. I'd love to find the post, but A2K is not all that searchable. But hey, there are "some very fine people on both sides".

Of course "misuse of anti hate speech legislation" is subjective. Whether you support censorship or oppose it depends on your political ideology (which is kind of the point).

A google search "censorship in the UK" reveals quite a bit ... including a couple of cases you man disagree with. The most obvious of these is the "Gay News" case, where a LGBT newspaper was censored because of anti-blasphemy laws.

There are other examples including a guy who got into trouble for criticizing chiropractors.

Yeah you are right.... Izzy makes far more personal attacks than Oralloy.

But they are quite similar in that they use political ideology to attach labels to people; Izzy and Oralloy have both referred to people who disagree with them as "Nazis" even though the targets don't identify themselves as Nazis or fit the dictionary definition of Nazi.

They are similar in that they both push an ideology to the extreme, and they both refuse to accept the people who dissent from their world view are human beings with rights.