White Supremacist Terrorism

@maxdancona,

You're watering down what "hate speech" is, to be benign. Your example isn't "hate speech." It's a slogan, an advertisement, an attention getter.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Hate speech is a form of political speech. If it is not immediately harmful, it is highly protected by our Constitution.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You're watering down what "hate speech" is, to be benign. Your example isn't "hate speech." It's a slogan, an advertisement, an attention getter.

Define hate speech in a way that isn't subjective? Is people shouting "death to the patriarchy" an example of hate speech?

By defining what is hate speech and what isn't, you are defining a political ideology. Insulting the president could be considered hate speech. In England, not that long ago, criticizing the Monarchy was considered "treason".

Your truth is another person's hate speech. That doesn't mean I would ever want the government to silence you.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

So, you agree, free speech has limitation.

All rights can be limited so long as the limitations comply with Strict Scrutiny.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I disagree. Only because the effort doesn't come after YOU will you understand that you're caught in the loop.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Could you rephrase this. I have no clue what you are trying to say bere.

The real danger is when a government can suppress a belief or opinion. The ability to dissent from the prevailing political ideology is crucial in any free society. If the government can suppress a point of view it doesn't like, there is no longer freedom.

I do not believe there is any idea or belief that should be suppressed by government. The very few limitations are on specific ways of expressing a belief as a call to action, not on the belief itself.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The very few limitations are on specific ways of expressing a belief as a call to action, not on the belief itself.

That is essentially the belief as a call to action to deny. As in it can be, will be, a suppression of ideals or actions.

In essence, your argument is invalid. Government does suppress Freedom. It does so by by not letting you yell whatever you want, whenever you want.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I honestly don't get your point. There are two different issues here

1. I am free to express any idea that I want, or any belief that I want no matter how offensive it is.

2. I can not yell whatever I want whenever I want.

I don't know know what you trying to argue about. Do we agree on these two points?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You can't, normal people can. Like I've said can you find an example where UK hate speech has been abused? You been very vague as always.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. What Neptune is saying isn't that tricky, don't make the rest of us suffer because you can't grasp basic English.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That was meant as a joke. Ignore it if it didn't make you chuckle.

It didn't make anyone chuckle, you're not funny and Oralloy does not understand humour, it's an alien concept.

What you're both good at is whining, Oralloy likes to whine about how 'leftists' are going to take his guns away leaving him as some slobbering blubbery mass.

And you like to whine about how 'feminists' have taken your genitals away leaving you as....

That's why you both like hate speech so you can both focus away from your own glaring inadequacies.

It is a comfort to the wretched to have companions in misery. Christopher Marlowe Mephistopheles from Dr Faustus.

I won't try explaining it to you because life's too short, and I'm sure the others will understand.

0 Replies

Max should be pleased, hate speech allowed and a film critical of Trump pulled.

Quote:

Universal Pictures has pulled the release of The Hunt following a series of mass shootings and criticism from US President Donald Trump.

The Hunt, a satirical film in which liberals hunt Trump supporters and kill them for sport, was due to be released on 27 September.

Marketing of the film had already been put on hold following the El Paso and Dayton shootings.

Universal said the decision was made after "thoughtful consideration."

The Hunt's storyline is intended to reflect the divided nature of US politics.

One trailer for the film was pulled by ESPN. It was said to open with the sound resembling an emergency broadcast signal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49310259

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Like I've said can you find an example where UK hate speech has been abused?

I think what you mean is that I should find an example where the UK hate speech law resulted in a case that you disagreed with. The issue is that censoring speech almost always favors one political ideology over the others. This is as true in the modern UK as it is in North Korea.

I also mentioned the Gay News case. I don't know how you feel about laws from not that long ago preventing people in England from criticizing the monarchy. You yourself mentioned "The Hunt" (the recently canceled movie). A private movie studio canceling a movie isn't exactly the same as government censorship (but I will let it slide).

It is this simple... If you agree with the prevailing political ideology in your country, then censorship favors you. If you dissent, then it targets you.

Believing in Free Speech means that you support the right of free speech even when people disagree with you.

The danger of letting a government, such as the UK government, selectively censor ideas and beliefs should be clear. In England the government can and does control religious teaching; they can restrict what imams or rabbis or ministers teach in their houses of worship... and they do just that.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Full of half truths as ever. The government can't control teaching, it can control funding, if they want money from the public purse they have to fulfil certain criteria.

Laws from 'not that long ago' are irrelevant. Stick to the here and now, unless you want to start justifying McCarthyism, which I wouldn't put past you.

You're talking bollocks about political ideology, it's about hate speech which is clear across the divide whether it's from religious or political extremes, it tends to target already marginalised people who can't help being themselves.

Don't tell me what I mean, what I mean is what I say, and you're being as vague as ever. You did briefly mention the Gay News story so why not go into specifics? It's because it's all puff and nonsense, minor fine apology all done. I've not even bothered looking it up that's how well I know you're full of it.

You're full of bluster, why do you think hate speech specifically should be protected? Let's keep it simple, Holocaust Denial. Why do you think a political organisation should be able to leaflet a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood with claims that the Holocaust never happened?

No more vague bollocks, try to deal with the specifics for once.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Holocaust Denial. Why do you think a political organisation should be able to leaflet a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood with claims that the Holocaust never happened?

Because Free Speech is a basic human right. The government has no right to suppress speech based on political ideology. This goes for Nazis. This also goes for Feminists anti-war protesters, religious groups, LGBT rights groups... free speech is free for everyone.

Once you have the government deciding which ideologies it will accept and which it will suppress using the power of the law, speech is no longer free.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

It's not an ideology it's a fact. The Holocaust happened, it's not a belief, it's a matter of History.

1 Reply

Reverend Barber on White Supremacy

Published September 1, 2017

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's not an ideology it's a fact. The Holocaust happened, it's not a belief, it's a matter of History.

When it comes to the Government suppression of speech, the facts are whatever Parliament says they are. In this case I agree with parliament (on the history, not on the suppression of speech).

In the UK, the government has the ability to set up unquestionable truths and then punish anyone who expresses dissent. In the past they have done exactly that... for example when questioning the Monarchy was a crime. And there are recent cases where the government has censored religious teaching in churches and mosques.

You may agree with the government in these cases, but it is still giving the government an awful lot of power.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Here we go, back into vagueness once more. More pointless waffle and windbaggery.

That's what happens when you ascribe equal value to truth and lies.

0 Replies

White Supremacist Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know