interestingā¦ had plenty of teachers who happily shared political views both in the class room and outside it ā¦ albeit form the left side of the spectrum - and I was a willing recipientā¦ so whilst no hate, no prejudice, still political that some would argue was outside of the remit and outside of āprofessional standardsāā¦ I donāt believe its that far fetchedā¦
Ok, so what do you reckon youād have said if one was incredibly racist?
Difficult to know - I would like to think I would have known to tell en to go fuck themselvesā¦ but easy to say that now, being all grown up and allā¦ at 17, would have been fine, at 12, 13?
The point is about the the impact/influence that āfree speechā can have on the innocent, the impressionable when the message is one of hate. Should such folk be given a platform to spread such messages or should that right be withdrawn when it undermines the very values of such freedoms?
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Difficult to know - I would like to think I would have known to tell en to go fuck themselvesā¦ but easy to say that now, being all grown up and allā¦ at 17, would have been fine, at 12, 13?
The point is about the the impact/influence that āfree speechā can have on the innocent, the impressionable when the message is one of hate. Should such folk be given a platform to spread such messages or should that right be withdrawn when it undermines the very values of such freedoms?
You are never going to avoid situations in which racist adults impart those messages onto kids, but itās mostly parents that I worry about.
The problem with your qualifications is that they all need qualifying. What is hate speech? Whatās the dividing line? Who gets to decide?
The problems you introduce when attempting to āsolveā this are bigger than the actual problem itself. Itās predicated on establishing some sort of norm from which one must not deviate too far. That doesnāt sound like free speech to me.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
The problem with your qualifications is that they all need qualifying. What is hate speech? Whatās the dividing line? Who gets to decide?
They donāt want to define it, cos the law is mostly there so they can legally harass suspected terror-bros & fascists without having to go to the trouble of having actual evidence.
1 Like
Cant agree pap, Iām affraid. Your POV on this does come across as rather idealistic, and over intellectualise the issue. It is not or should not be that complicated. If you spout shite that preaches prejudice, hatred or anything that undermines these freedoms for teh sake he sake of principle - then IMHO you should lose that right. Quite rightly, you stand up in the stret and incite racial hatred, that is against the law and should be. Where the line is drawn is going to be divisive - do I care what Greer says about TGs? not really but she should STFU because she has abuse dteh platform afforded to herā¦ This issuse is only black and white in theoryā¦ in reality it really is about what is being said, not just the right to say it.
Yeah, this is a complex debate; posters have made some good points on both sides, I reckon.
The concern for me is that denying people a platform means that their views will simply be disseminated in a murky clandestine world where they will be lapped up by like-minded people without counter argument or ridicule etc. Imo, itās probably better in the long run that peopleās views, no matter how heinous to others, are aired and debated in the open where they can be held up to public scrutiny, debate, scorn, contempt etc.
2 Likes
Interesting article:
As Halo has said, good arguments from both sides and I find myself see-sawing between the 2.
I find KRGās arguments quite repressive to be honest and itās almost along the lines of Franceās attitude in that you can have free speech as long as I agree with what your saying.
Free speech should be just that and it should be tolerated, just because it doesnāt agree with your world view doesnāt make it wrong. Look at ISIS and their views, totally wrong to us but they could equally say the same about our views, who is correct?
As Pap said if someone says something you disagree with then you can always resort to reasoned debate to try and persuade them otherwise, again this is probably a Nirvana as there will always be idiots out there who will use force to express their views.
As the great Salvor Hardin once said āViolence is the last refuge of the incompetentā
1 Like
The thing is, the idea that all speech is equal is inherently flawed. It gives the idea that there are two, legitimate, sides to everything.
Thatās bullshit. But, under the guise of free speech this is what you get.
āHere is Mr(s) X, they were subjected to terrible abuse. And to give the other side, we have their abuser.ā
āHere is a Muslim man, here to give some insight into what life is like for a British Muslim, and the challenges they face. And, to give the other side, is Paul Golding, former BNP man & Britain First Leader.ā
I struggle to see why this is a controversial view. Iām not even proposing anything new, Hate Speech is not protected speech. It is literally against the law. I am not talking about going round and gagging anyone. More, that the current laws are upheld.
Itās not even like the idea that abusing your rights, leads to a withdrawal of your rights. That is pretty much the entire idea of society.
The idea that everyone can and should just say what they want, and a meritocracy of ideas will rise to the top is utopian nonsense. Nowhere in history has this ever been the case. Give people free reign, and people will abuse it. In a world where all speech is treated of equal value, neglecting the damage speech can have, all that happens is the loudest voices drown everyone out. The most marginalised people will be drowned out.
Originally posted by @KRG
The thing is, the idea that all speech is equal is inherently flawed. It gives the idea that there are two, legitimate, sides to everything.
Thatās bullshit. But, under the guise of free speech this is what you get.
āHere is Mr(s) X, they were subjected to terrible abuse. And to give the other side, we have their abuser.ā
āHere is a Muslim man, here to give some insight into what life is like for a British Muslim, and the challenges they face. And, to give the other side, is Paul Golding, former BNP man & Britain First member.ā
I struggle to see why this is a controversial view. Iām not even proposing anything new, Hate Speech is not protected speech. It is literally against the law. I am not talking about going round and gagging anyone. More, that the current laws are upheld.
Itās not even like the idea that abusing your rights, leads to a withdrawal of your rights. That is pretty much the entire idea of society.
The idea that everyone can and should just say what they want, and a meritocracy of ideas will rise to the top is utopian nonsense. Nowhere in history has this ever been the case. Give people free reign, and people will abuse it. In a world where all speech is treated of equal value, neglecting the damage speech can have, all that happens is the loudest voices drown everyone out. The most marginalised people will be drowned out.
Judging by the dismissive nature of some people on here this may sink your argument, but I agree with you.
I think the problem is that the concept or principle of free speech in its purest form is fundementally right - like many things that we believe are morally and ethically right, idealistic in nature, these unflawed and wonderful ideals rely on a āperfect and unflawedā world. Humans are not unlflawed as we have seen, and so the abuse of such a fundemental right is common.
In principle, the idea that when we hear wicked and hateful speech, our inherent morality and courage will kick in and we will be able to show them all up to idiots and the majority will laugh at these bigots, racists, facists etcā¦and they will be enlightened etc is a great one. But lets be honestā¦ can we say that happens all the time?
I know many donāt like to use this example, but when Hitler stood up and spouted antisemitic hate, the majority went along with it - already indoctrinated by propoganda enabled by the freedoms of speech and expression we often hold so preciousā¦ because āgood men did nothingā
I donāt think this issue is black and white. IMHO it is a little naive and idealistic to assume it is. Itās a complex moral issue given our flawed nature in how we respond to what we hear and read is not always how we would like to think we would - and are we not also repsonsible for protecting those unable to make what we would consider the right moral or ethical choice?
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Judging by the dismissive nature of some people on here this may sink your argument, but I agree with you.
Cut it out, Cherts. Youāll win no friends (or indeed, arguments) by casting vague aspersions about your fellow forum members.
I love the continued cry of dismissive though. Didnāt you dismiss the entire diseases linked to poverty thing because your kid, one child, had both contracted the disease and wasnāt living in a cardboard fucking box?
Equally, didnāt you dismiss outright any concern with the chancellor of the Exchequerās dads company, because they might not have done the moral thing, or that its perfectly legal for a company to pull 200m revenue from this country and make no taxable profits?
As I said yesterday, we are still waiting for our first cogent defence of right wing thinking, still looking for something more substantive than a wordy āno it isnātā. Yeah, sometimes Iām dismissive, but thatās almost your entire debating tactic when it comes to political arguments.
No, as I wrote yesterday I dismissed it because I believe like many diseases, these come and go in cycles. Like I said yesterday, why donāt you go back and read through the thread as I outlined that there. As with the Osborneās company, go back through and read that thread. I didnāt dismiss it, in fact my first response said it didnāt seem right. Turnover has no link to profitability as the Guardian article I posted on there shows, they had made Ā£9m in losses over a number of years. Seems your accountancy knowledge is up there with your medical.
Youāre letting this get personal Pap, over the last few days you seem to be losing more and more of your ability to read, absorb and debate. Perhaps if you did you wouldnāt make the sweeping and ill-advised assumptions you seem to have been making recently.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
No, as I wrote yesterday I dismissed it because I believe like many diseases, these come and go in cycles. Like I said yesterday, why donāt you go back and read through the thread as I outlined that there. As with the Osborneās company, go back through and read that thread. Turnover has no link to profitability as the Guardian article I posted on there shows, they had made Ā£9m in losses over a number of years.
Iāve read all of it, and I agree with bletch. If theyāre doing so badly, why the hell is their highest paid director getting an 18% payrise with such poor performance?
Youāre letting this get personal Pap, over the last few days you seem to be losing more and more of your ability to read, absorb and debate. Perhaps if you did you wouldnāt make the sweeping and ill-advised assumptions you seem to have been making recently.
I wonder if you actually twigged to how personal you had to get to make this remark. 
The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
I just donāt think you get how big business works personally.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
I just donāt think you get how big business works personally.
Superbly qualified argument. Not at all dismissive.
Itās qualified by your statementsā¦I think we should remove ourselves from this discussion as it seems to be massively undermining and derailing what is an interesting thread.
Cherts, you do realise that I work for big business, right? Iāll take the Pepsi challenge on most operational areas after a decade in the game.
Your assertion is that I donāt know how big business works. I think your actual problem is that I know exactly how big business works; as a general rule, it doesnāt give a fuck about anything except itself.
Osborneās fatherās firm is far from alone in using morally dubious but perfectly legal business practices to ensure that the Exchequer gets fuck all. There are innumerable examples of the way big business works. The relocation of the perfectly profitable Cadburyās business to Eastern Europe. Apple Corporation subcontracting work to companies in China where conditions are so bad that theyāve got fucking suicide nets on the outside of the building, instead of paying US workers a wage. Starbucks, Google, Amazon and others headquartering themselves in low tax regimes while making a fucking killing out of the UK market.
I understand big business just fine, ta. What I donāt get is why anyone would be an apologist for these practices.
1 Like
Whoās being an apologist for them Pap? This really should move to the other thread btw.