You Are 'free' ...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not considering intention I don't see what you mean.

No, I take things in the sense they are written down, I am sorry I can't interpret it the way to not think you are an idiot. You have to write what you really mean, I can't just guess it. And as for that, what you really said was stupid and not very elaborate. Your replies were out of context and not sufficient to counter any of my arguments.

*takes a minute to think of what is allowed and what isn't allowed*

If it a speech that hates something that doesn't deserve to be hated -- to an extreme level -- it should not be allowed.

Is that okay?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, I learnt to talk differently to you.

*takes a minute to think of what is allowed and what isn't allowed*

If it a speech that hates something that doesn't deserve to be hated -- to an extreme level -- it should not be allowed.

Is that okay?

What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide.

Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's done harm deserves to be hated.

Unbiased politicians decide.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Click on the Non Aggression Principle link in my signature.

Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What about the smartest person ever? Surely he knows what's what.

a) why?
b) how would you determine them?
c) how would you make sure they are not biased?
d) are you for an all decidind dictator chosen by some consept of intelligence?
e) what if the 4 next smartest people absolutely disagree?
f) what sort of intelligence would you seek?
etc.

You either people say it all, or don't. Simple. Some half minded 'freedom' of speech is lame.

It can't be 'freedom of speech' if there's a restriction, can it now...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You either people say it all, or don't. Simple. Some half minded 'freedom' of speech is lame.

It can't be 'freedom of speech' if there's a restriction, can it now...

it could be freedoms of speech. I wouldn't say it implies absolute freedom actually. I think it should. But I can see why it is not necessarily implied. I agree though it is lame.

Someone might come in with saying that telling someone to kill another person would fall under freedom of speech, though I don't subscribe to that, ordering murder is not just random speech, in my opinion.

The term 'Freedom of Speech' actually means a concept which is not literally free.

As was pointed out during the protest, you are not allowed to yell 'Fire!' in a cinema because it might harm people.

Likewise incitement to racial hatred is rightly prevented because of the harm it will cause.

That said, there were absolutely no grounds at all for stopping those two from speaking. They were not saying "burn all Jews now." There was no direct incitement to harm, or for that matter any form of such incitement at all. They hold certain political views that many of us would find repellent, but absolutely the way to fight sich views is via debate and discussion.

Shutting them up does not prevent the spread of the view and gives the cause a martyr.

Though it is arguable whether they should have been offered that platform in the first place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's nonsense of course. Saying All Jews are **** (though it is not true), should not be illegal. You are not harming anyone, you are just throwing out your stupid ideas and you should be allowes to do that.

👆

In this case, our freedoms, including freedom of expression, are being taken away by a malevolent elite,

its at this point you kind of know what's coming really

but regardless it has validity and there were several things which i found highly amusing...one of which was

Oxford University Labour Club

i did not know such a thing existed in such a blatently upper class establishment....but i fear it probably exists due to well off students rebelling again mamma and daddy

Contradiction and irony are indivisible and thus you have both in abundance with the doublethinking free speech deniers who also believe in the right to free speech. For instance, one of their heroes, the American academic, Noam Chomsky, said: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all'.
But the Robot Radical computer software is so firewalled from reality that it can cheer at that sentiment while doing the opposite. Even then, we need to go further than Chomsky. It is not only that if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in freedom at all.

It is that if we don't have freedom for those we despise there can be no freedom for anyone. This is the point that most people miss. Put simply, freedom is only freedom when everyone is equally free. You can't be a little bit pregnant and, by the same principle, you can't be a little bit free. You either are, or you aren't.

If people we don't like are not free to say what we don't like, how can we be free to say what we like? We can't, because if others are denied the right to free expression then whatever we say is not free speech, but speech that is within the bounds of official acceptability. That is NOT freedom of expression; it is conformity to what others have decided it is okay to say.

ok ok...we get the point...once was enough...4 times isn't neccessary

How can that be, Dave?

your name's not Dave...i'm guessing..given previous form that this was written by your usual "Dave"

if so the least you could do is tell people this so they know the angle

regardless...like i say...i agree with the crux of the argument but as the article points out...it hinges on the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression

freedom of expression allows for there to be many different religions side by side in countries throughout the world because the expression of the religion in itself is not what offends other religions

it is the freedom of speech which allows people to criticise other religions that also allow hate speech

you will notice that government policy doesn't actually prevent people from performing so callled "hate" speechs in public...it only makes the potential fallout from these speeches a crime...hence you get "inciting racial hatred"...even when no such racial hatred may result from the speech

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Though it is arguable whether they should have been offered that platform in the first place.

Literally speaking, yes, arguable.

But I very much believe what I say above is already an argument saying... yes you should. You should afford them every privilege that any other view can get. All the better for its subsequent demolition.

Meanwhile, calling Oxford University 'upper class' is simple ignorance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Literally speaking, yes, arguable.

But I very much believe what I say above is already an argument saying... yes you should. You should afford them every privilege that any other view can get. All the better for its subsequent demolition.

Yeah. It's good theoretically, but I doubt a critical deconstruction of their views in an Oxford debate is going to much affect the views of the people that follow them in the first place.

Holocaust denial seems inherently silly to me anyway; it's hardly worth the acknowledgement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Click on the Non Aggression Principle link in my signature.

Who is unbiased? You have very naive views. How do you find those unbiased people (you won't, whatever they outlaw is what they are biased against)? How do you find out they are biased? You have to wisen up, your ideals are illogical, you need to abandin them rather sooner than later.

"Abandon"

Oooo.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oooo.

I-it was a payback.