Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

KomradeBishop

Notice the switching between talking free speech of staff on the workplace vs free speech of staff off the workplace wherever it suits the argument at hand.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, Komrade is right. Please stay on topic.

silverharp

Free speech in the workplace is connected to property rights . if you are an employee your employer has a right to limit your " speech" you can't just turn up in political party colours or handing out religious tracts. Your employer on the other hand can. Most of this seems to be around managing your social media output and having the right to anonymity.
One little nasty thing of late is this doxxing nonsense. It can be life destroying if some on line mob manages to get someone's details but the onus is on people to be more careful and in general to resist campaigners attempts to remove anonymity from the net.

Nodin

walshyn93 wrote: »

On the contrary. I would love it if radical Muslims could stand on Stephens Green and spout their rubbish. If it's not exposed to ridicule it festers in Mosques and midnight Madrassas or in online forums. It wasn't freedom of speech that caused Brevik to do what he did, it was a lack of it. He likely would not have done what he did had there been a free and honest debate over the spread of Islam into Norway. The fact that such views were taboo very much contributed to the manner of his response.

The poor misunderstood little lamb.

Custardpi

Nodin wrote: »

The poor misunderstood little lamb.

Breivik is a murdering piece of sh1t who I hope rots in hell, I think most sane people can agree on that. However, if it is true that the media & online landscape in Norway is an overly censorious one in which uncomfortable views are instantly silenced without discussion then perhaps it does suggest that adopting such an attitude towards extremist opinions does not necessarily keep people safe from the potential results of those opinions.

walshyn93

Custardpi wrote: »

Breivik is a murdering piece of sh1t who I hope rots in hell, I think most sane people can agree on that. However, if it is true that the media & online landscape in Norway is an overly censorious one in which uncomfortable views are instantly silenced without discussion then perhaps it does suggest that adapting such an attitude towards extremist opinions does not necessarily keep people safe from the potential results of those opinions.

Likewise, no one is minimising his depraved actions.

However, he stated his motive was to draw attention to his manifesto which mainly concerned the spread of Islam into Europe, so it would appear that he never would have done what he did had there been an open and honest debate in the mainstream media about the issue.

Nodin

Custardpi wrote: »

Breivik is a murdering piece of sh1t who I hope rots in hell, I think most sane people can agree on that. However, if it is true that the media & online landscape in Norway is an overly censorious one in which uncomfortable views are instantly silenced without discussion then perhaps it does suggest that adopting such an attitude towards extremist opinions does not necessarily keep people safe from the potential results of those opinions.

Allowing racists and sectarian bigots to spout their nonsense leads to the likes of NI. And one can never be kept safe from the mentally ill.

Nodin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Likewise, no one is minimising his depraved actions.

However, he stated his motive was to draw attention to his manifesto which mainly concerned the spread of Islam into Europe, so it would appear that he never would have done what he did had there been an open and honest debate in the mainstream media about the issue.

One cannot have an open and honest debate with a raving bigot, for obvious reasons.

Custardpi

Nodin wrote: »

Allowing racists and sectarian bigots to spout their nonsense leads to the likes of NI. And one can never be kept safe from the mentally ill.

Does silencing them prevent violence? I'm not so sure. The massive imbalance of power between the communities, the gerrymandering of electoral districts, the sectarian school system, the neglect by British governments & the lack of fora for effective dialogue might possibly have had more to do with it than simply there not being enough censorship.

Nodin

Custardpi wrote: »

Does silencing them prevent violence? I'm not so sure. The massive imbalance of power between the communities, the gerrymandering of electoral districts, the sectarian school system, the neglect by British governments & the lack of fora for effective dialogue might possibly have had more to do with it than simply there not being enough censorship.

Had there not been untold years of hate, bile and venom poured out, why would a society engaged in gerrymandering and discrimination?

(The school system suited/suits both catholic and protestant churches, as they maintain control of 'their own').

Custardpi

Nodin wrote: »

One cannot have an open and honest debate with a raving bigot, for obvious reasons.

Actually if someone is genuinely a "raving bigot" as opposed to someone who simply has a different opinion to you sometimes having an open & honest debate with them is absolutely the right thing to do. The aim in this case would not necessarily be to come to an agreement with them, but rather to expose the ridiculousness of their arguments to any observers.
The famous appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin on the BBC programme Question Time was a great example of this. Lots of protest about it beforehand but when he actually came on & had to discuss his views & statements rather than simply yelling them into a crowd of his own supporters he was quickly exposed for the utter chump that he was.

kunst nugget

walshyn93 wrote: »

However, he stated his motive was to draw attention to his manifesto which mainly concerned the spread of Islam into Europe, so it would appear that he never would have done what he did had there been an open and honest debate in the mainstream media about the issue.

I'm sorry but I think that is complete and utter bollocks.

Custardpi

By the way, Breivik was ruled not to be mentally ill.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22220-mental-health-the-winner-after-breivik-sane-ruling/

kunst nugget

Custardpi wrote: »

Actually if someone is genuinely a "raving bigot" as opposed to someone who simply has a different opinion to you sometimes having an open & honest debate with them is absolutely the right thing to do. The aim in this case would not necessarily be to come to an agreement with them, but rather to expose the ridiculousness of their arguments to any observers.
The famous appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin on the BBC programme Question Time was a great example of this. Lots of protest about it beforehand but when he actually came on & had to discuss his views & statements rather than simply yelling them into a crowd of his own supporters he was quickly exposed for the utter chump that he was.

Breivik wasn't looking for political respectability. He was looking to ethnically cleanse inferior races from his country:

Breivik has expressed his admiration for al-Qaida's willingness to "embrace" death and was keen to adopt the organisation's methods: his ultimate goal last July was to behead Norway's former prime minister and post the video online. Like al-Qaida, he believes in acts of spectacular violence as a first step to changing the world, seeks to purge his own people of those deemed weak in the face of the enemy, yearns for a pure, past golden age that never existed, and dreams of apocalypse. Above all, he wants those he regards as his people to be unsullied by contact with inferior others.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/breivik-terrorist-like-al-qaida

Nodin

Custardpi wrote: »

Actually if someone is genuinely a "raving bigot" as opposed to someone who simply has a different opinion to you sometimes having an open & honest debate with them is absolutely the right thing to do. The aim in this case would not necessarily be to come to an agreement with them, but rather to expose the ridiculousness of their arguments to any observers.
The famous appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin on the BBC programme Question Time was a great example of this. Lots of protest about it beforehand but when he actually came on & had to discuss his views & statements rather than simply yelling them into a crowd of his own supporters he was quickly exposed for the utter chump that he was.

Unfortunately its not often that simple. The thing with Griffin is - despite him being possibly the most successful leader the BNP had - he's quite dim and not as adroit as handling a hostile audience as others may be.

Custardpi

Nodin wrote: »

Unfortunately its not often that simple. The thing with Griffin is - despite him being possibly the most successful leader the BNP had - he's quite dim and not as adroit as handling a hostile audience as others may be.

How does one know how adroit other far right people might be in that scenario if their views are not exposed to open public scrutiny? Walling the far right off into communities like Stormfront or sections of the Dark Net doesn't make them go away.

jobbridge4life

Nodin wrote: »

Unfortunately its not often that simple. The thing with Griffin is - despite him being possibly the most successful leader the BNP had - he's quite dim and not as adroit as handling a hostile audience as others may be.

It also assumes that being demonstrated to be wrong/idiotic will have the appropriate impact on the popularity and or credibility of the bigot. Unfortunately, this isn't a guarantee.

Custardpi

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It also assumes that being demonstrated to be wrong/idiotic will have the appropriate impact on the popularity and or credibility of the bigot. Unfortunately, this isn't a guarantee.

Nothing is guaranteed by any policy. The idea that silencing uncomfortable ideas is a guarantee of preventing extremist violence would also be false. Personally I'd take honest & open discussion of ideas over the head in the sand (these ideas have been banished from the media - problem solved!) mentality of the censors.

jobbridge4life

Custardpi wrote: »

Nothing is guaranteed by any policy. The idea that silencing uncomfortable ideas is a guarantee of preventing extremist violence would also be false. Personally I'd take honest & open discussion of ideas over the head in the sand (these ideas have been banished from the media - problem solved!) mentality of the censors.

I don't believe that anyone truly believes that prohibiting certain speech results in the issue being 'solved', no more than anyone thinks banning rape has 'solved' that problem.

Custardpi

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone truly believes that prohibiting certain speech results in the issue being 'solved', no more than anyone thinks banning rape has 'solved' that problem.

Maybe "solved" is too strong but there does seem to be a belief among the fans of censorship that banning certain beliefs rather than educating people & demonstrating why they're wrong, dealing with the underlying causes of those beliefs etc somehow does anything other than push them underground & allow them to fester, possibly emerging later in an even more extreme form.

walshyn93

Nodin wrote: »

Allowing racists and sectarian bigots to spout their nonsense leads to the likes of NI. And one can never be kept safe from the mentally ill.

No that was less to do with freedom of speech of bigots and more to do with the suppression of the civil rights movement, in essence the suppression of freedom of speech. The idea that freedom of speech lead to any of the horrors of the 20th century is a total fiction and needs to be debunked at every turn.

walshyn93

I'm always in favour of freedom of speech until Nodin enters a thread.

Custardpi

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm always in favour of freedom of speech until Nodin enters a thread.

Be fair. In this thread at least he's engaging honestly & in good faith.

To answer the OP's question - Yes.

From the feminists and thought police on one hand, to Islamic terrorists on the other, free speech is under greater threat now than at any time I can remember.

Internet hate mobs gleefully ruin the careers and lives of anyone who utters anything that can be construed as "offensive".

It gets more sinister when for instance the Cologne sex attacks are covered up by police and media for fear that it might offend migrants.

Nodin

Custardpi wrote: »

How does one know how adroit other far right people might be in that scenario if their views are not exposed to open public scrutiny? Walling the far right off into communities like Stormfront or sections of the Dark Net doesn't make them go away.

No, but it limits their ability to spread venom.

Custardpi wrote: »

Nothing is guaranteed by any policy. The idea that silencing uncomfortable ideas is a guarantee of preventing extremist violence would also be false. Personally I'd take honest & open discussion of ideas over the head in the sand (these ideas have been banished from the media - problem solved!) mentality of the censors.

It's not so much "uncomfortable ideas" as falsehoods that are the problem

Walshyn93 wrote:

No that was less to do with freedom of speech of bigots and more to do with
the suppression of the civil rights movement, in essence the suppression of
freedom of speech.

And they needed a civil rights movement because.....?

wojtek wrote:

..........when for instance the Cologne sex attacks are covered up by police and media for fear that it might offend migrants.

A classic example of nonsense gaining traction because its shouted enough.

jobbridge4life

Custardpi wrote: »

Maybe "solved" is too strong but there does seem to be a belief among the fans of censorship that banning certain beliefs rather than educating people & demonstrating why they're wrong, dealing with the underlying causes of those beliefs etc somehow does anything other than push them underground & allow them to fester, possibly emerging later in an even more extreme form.

Do you have evidence of the above?

For the record, I am a (fairly) firm believer in the principle that (almost) anything should be 'okay to say'. However, I am regularly in the company of those who do not share my opinion. These same individuals do not at all believe that prohibiting certain speech* is an alternative to education and demonstration, rather they feel it is an element of the same.

*in your reply you jumped to 'banning certain beliefs'. This is a qualitatively different issue. Banning beliefs is an obvious nonsense.

Custardpi

Look at censorship around Europe for instance, particularly in countries such as Germany & Austria which have banned denial of the holocaust. Generally levels of political censorship would tend to be higher across the continent than they would be in the US. Yet the far right is thriving in Europe due to the economic crisis, disillusion with the establishment & the failure of the Left to mount an inspiring enough challenge, with a couple of exceptions such as Podemos.

walshyn93

Nodin wrote: »

And they needed a civil rights movement because.....?

So you're saying bigoted speech lead to a productive and peaceful movement for civil rights is what you're saying. We need more bigoted speech if that's the case.

walshyn93

Nodin wrote: »

A classic example of nonsense gaining traction because its shouted enough.

Really, nonsense is it? Care to explain that comment?

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

A classic example of nonsense gaining traction because its shouted enough.

Why did it take until 5 days after the event for it to start to be reported in the media?

Anyway, if you doubt it, then simply subtract 'Cologne' and add 'Rotherham'. Different cities, very similar theme.