If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Just remember that the Jackboot's decision last week to ban a Dutch nutter from coming to the UK cos he's said a few nasty things about Muslims was all about self-preservation, not principle. I see no reason why she'll suddenly develop some principles over this one.
However, I do agree that if one group starts suppressing freedom of speech, when will it stop? How long will it take for my opinions to be "too offensive" to be heard in public?
Inciting racial, ethnic or homophobic hatred are clear no-nos and should not be allowed. Not now. Perhaps when racist and homophobic attacks are a thing of the past we can afford to tolerate such cunts peddling their filth. But too many people are still being beaten to death, abused, discriminated and persecuted by knuckle-drugging scumbags for us to allow such fuckers as Wilders to encourage them further. Fuck that cunt's 'freedom of speech'.
You can put freedom of speech in quotes as much as you like, it doesn't make it any less of a fundamental freedom which should be vehemently protected from curtailment. I could claim I find your readiness to strip me of my right to hear these people more offensive than the bullshit the God Hates Gays group comes out with, and that in fact it should be your freedom of speech which is restricted. But I won't, because, other than the fact it'd be superlative hypocrisy on my part, I don't believe that my personal bugbears should be legislated against. So as much as you'd like to believe it's not a slippery slope, it is.
As for incitement to hated acts they can, largely, fuck right off. The concept of incitement to hatred is such a wishy-washy idea and if applied consistently would surely included banning a fuck-loads of things - including the majority of religious texts. This over-protective ethos of not allowing people to be exposed to the full spectrum of humanity is ridiculous, and plain fucking wrong. People like the pope, Abu Hamza, Wilders, and the God Hates Fags lot should be given public forums as often as they like; there's no better way to counter-act small-minded, bigoted fuck-wits than having their arguments systematically pulled apart in a public arena.
I'm sorry if i sound curt, but people's readiness to curtail freedom of speech is a bugbear of mine, and is more often than not a lazy, fingers-in-the-ears, blanket solution to a subtle and nuanced problem.
In fact, if someone had put a stop to Adolph Hitler's and the Nazi party's racist shit-stirring, tens of millions of people would have not been killed in the most horrific war in the history of mankind.
And while modern day fascists are of course a much, much less significant threat, I am yet to see a single instance where open debate and successful rebuttal of BNP's claims and values has succeeded in convincing people they're unworthy scum. In fact the opposite is, and has always been, true. The more mud you allow folk to throw, the more will stick.
Some people are just too stupid, put it simple. And for as long as that remains we must not allow certain repugnant mantra to poison people's minds and help perpetuate many of the ailments that continue to plague mankind.
Every single time I see someone with bigotted or small-minded views being debated by an even part-way competent opponent they're made to look ridiculous. Every time Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris debate a creationist they make their views look infantile. I wish these debates were given much larger audiences.
But for specifics how about: the Wilberforce and Huxley debate; Immigration: An Inconvenient Truth (Channel 4, despatches documentary); Every BNP party political broadcast, the documentary about the Westboro baptist church, That channel 4 debate where prominent Muslim figures came and debated over why we shouldn't be allowed to criticise Islam - i can't recall it's bloody name.
There are loads of examples where people have been allowed to express their insane, small-minded views and have looked ridiculous.
Fuck me, I wondered how long it'd take before the Nazis were mentioned. If you're seriously equating the Westboro Baptist Church and the extermination of the Jews then we're done. You can't just cite "the Nazis" every time tolerance of something you disagree with is touted.
I don't know about you, but I've never seen Nick Griffin on prime-time television debating an intelligent opponent, however, I do remember his debate at Oxford being stifled by so-called liberals trying to silence him.
Well i'm sure people are really glad they've got you to decide not only what they can and can't hear, but what they're intelligent enough to hear and not hear.
The problem with the above approach is that while it is is clear and effective to the majority of us, it is not to those that need convincing. They simply ignore the outcome of such debates or remain unconvinced by the rational side, remembering only the half-truths and bald lies of the extreme right.
You've completely missed the point. I'm not comparing Westboro to the Nazis. I'm citing an example where censorship of racists and far-right fascists like a young Adolph Hitler would very likely have prevented the rise to power of the Nacional Socialist Party.
A world where even the likes of Hitler can say pretty much what they want might look ideal to you for the purposes of freedom of expression, but in practice it has disastrous consequences.
Quite right too. Fuck him.
It's true though isn't it?
That's like, what they thought in Apartheid, pretty much. Of course that was different because race was a factor, but the ruling class generally believed the populous was too stupid to run the country effectively or make effective decisions, and so restricted their ability to do so.
I think you either have democracy or you don't. If you do, feel free to bitch and whine that people are annoying, but that's part of the joys of democracy and I don't feel we should start banning political broadcasts because it might influence these kinds of people and we don't agree with those political broadcasts because we 'know better'.
As soon as you censor the internet, as soon as you take off books from the library bookshelves, as soon as you stop people coming to your country because they are advocates of certain ideologies, then you are infringing the people's democratic right to have free access to information.
If you have a democracy based on propaganda and/or selective information, it is not a democracy, it is just a dressed-up dictatorship.
I saw the Louie Therouxe (i probably spelt that wrong of course) program. It disgusted me. Particularly the bit I saw when they protested at a soldier's funeral. It was disgusting.
I do understand what is being said about the right to free speech and the right for people to hear what others have to say. I am not an advocate of the British government. And yet I find myself 'defending' an action. I may be called a hypocrite, but I fully understand that the government banned THEM coming here, for two reasons;
1 the prescence of the Phelps and their fellow finatics would cause great upset to a lot of people, I'm not a lesbain and I'm not a catholic but many people in this country are, and I don't see why these people should be made to feel uncomfortable for the sake of a few people who want to 'hear' what the Phelps have to say.
2 I may despise the westboro baptist church and everything it stands for but I do not advocate violence and if they were aloud in the country it would be a serious risk to their safety.
And maybe that all sounds stupid but it's my opinion
If total freedom of speech leads to the perpetuation (let alone an increase) of instances of persecution, discrimination and attacks on certain minorities, then I personally believe it is by far the lesser of two evils to try to prevent certain inflammatory, hate-inciting language and statements from being made.
Of course another matter is who gets to decide where the lines are drawn. But surely a general consensus can be agreed. Most people who are against racist and homophobic language would never agree to, say, restrictions on anything else.
Incidentally, I wonder if those of you who believe in unrestricted freedom of speech would support existing laws concerning it to be abolished. For instance, should a person have the legal right to say all blacks are rapists and murderers who should be killed?
If you believe they shouldn't, you're actually agreeing with me on principle on the issue of freedom of speech. The disagreement is on where those restrictions should be.
If anyone believes a person should actually have the right to call for others to be killed because of their colour of skin or sexuality (the latter being precisely what Westboro Church has said), well at least they're being consistent- but IMO it is both dangerous and wrong to do so, given the direct consequences it would have on millions.
Also worth noting two points based on what I've seen about the church -
It really isn't a church or a religion in any organised sense, it's more of a cult, containing mainly one single extended family all following one preacher. It's an important distinction when trying to understand just how anyone could behave the way they.
Secondly, I'm unaware of the church ever calling for another person to commit an act of violence against another person, whether due to sexuality or anything else. I think it's a real mistake to start imagining crimes where they aren't taking place. As far as I'm aware the church are good old 'End of Dayers' - believing that God chooses to kill the people who are sinning and that people should repent - not attack each other.
Now that's not to say that they don't preach hatred, but that's different from asking for people to be killed. To be clear - they say God kills all Americans because of gay rights, not just gay Americans.
Also worth bearing in mind the difference between a political party and a tiny cult - these addle-brained wankers aren't exactly standing in the next Presidential election.
I believe they should be free to say whatever the hell they like without fear of recriminations, on the condition what they are saying isn't directly threatening, or isn't inciting others to commit violent acts, and so on. Saying out loud in a public forum "blacks deserve to be killed" is very definitely threatening, and probably inciteful as well (encouraging racial violence, even if nobody pays attention).
But say you were in a police station, and you were a raving racist, and you say to the white PC 'all these f*cking pakis.. they should be hanged' I don't think the PC should charge you with 'saying racist stuff'. Of course if you were involved in a race crime it is definitely evidence, but in itself it should not be a crime nor a bar to entry.
It really does depend on the context, and there are already laws in place to deal with situations where it is inciteful or whatever. Would you ban someone from saying in the privacy of his own home that he hates homosexuals? I certainly don't agree with what he is saying, but he is entitled to say it, imo.
If he is in public there is a reasonable argument that he would understand saying things would be inciting hatred and could be construed easily as threatening. Thats what Whowhere meant about the UK already having the laws to deal with these guys if they picket somewhere.
Banning them outright from coming into this country is imo too far because they haven't done anything wrong here. They are unsavoury, yes - but how do you make the distinction between someone who is of sound character and one who is not? They should be made aware (like football fans are, to a degree) that they are being watched, and the law will be applied to the full extent if they misbehave, but until they actually *break* the law (or are about to do so) we should not be taking pre-emptive action.
If we followed your logic Aladdin, if no one says something then it isn't true or has never happened. Very dangerous path to go down, that.
I agree that we have to draw a line. We just draw our respective lines in two very different places. I don't believe in completely unfettered freedom of speech. We can all recognise that falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowed theatre shouldn't be allowed. But that's because it's clearly demonstrable that my right not be trampled to death outweighs somebody else's right to dangerously sound off. However, making judgements about what people can and can't hear based on your assessment of their intelligence is far from that. Gagging people because you don't like what they're saying isn't that either.
This is exactly the slippery slope you were claiming didn't have to happen. I could ban sales of any knives based on the claim that knife crime would be lowered. I could ban under 25s from driving because there'd be less deaths caused by dangerous driving. I could ban the Tory party because people on lower wages would be worse off. I also can't claim these things with the necessary degree of certainty to ban them, nor is it my place to, nor should I be able to.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Yes, we disagree on where the lines should be drawn.
I didn't worry that I was in danger because the Islamic nut-cases going metal over Danish cartoons called for me to be beheaded. And I didn't want to silence them either.
I thought you were a strong proponent and believer in the natural selection theory ?
Did you just say what I think you did? I think you'd better clarify exactly what you mean, because the way I'm reading that response it's a pretty appalling personal attack.
A personal attack on whom ?
Aladdin appears to me one of the most vociferous in lauding Darwin's theories at every opportunity. He usually starts threads whenever any topical item arises.
However, in the post he quoted, he claims that by not censoring certain people will result in the persecution of anyone weak enough not able to resist that persecution.
That stance seems to be contradictory to the Darwin belief system.
See The Descent of Man for further reading :
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SOiEo1tEnsoC
Ha, I fucking knew you were a seven-dayer!
I can't decide whether you are a troll, a racist, a complete idiot or all of the above. Either way, an extraordinarly ugly, stupid and completely untrue and poisonous comment. Well done.
Clearly defining his position isn't what this dude's about. It's all woolly, non-statements with him.
Just because humans are (arguably) at the top of the evolution tree doesn't give us carte blanche to go around killing every other living thing just because it can't defend itself. Your reply is just complete nonsense.
And likewise, survival of the fittest does not mean that any form of violence against "weaker" individuals should be tolerated.
There is a difference though between understanding the physical science theory of evolution, and then the application of the social policy of eugenics to greater or lesser extents (in case anyone starts raging about me = hitler, hitler wanted extreme forms i.e. destruction of everyone of races he didn't like. I believe in mild forms i.e. screening for genetic defects and giving people the choice to terminate).
To the degree that there is persecution, often that has nothing to do with breeding superior traits and everything to do with tribal violence (something, which we have evolved to enjoy, because the 'best' tribe will get the food and stuff - these days its not necessary).