Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Government Accountability Office in April 2017, there were 62 fatal “far-right violent extremist-motivated attacks” leading to 106 deaths between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The figures don't include police shootings, which as you know....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I admit my post was in jest, but for gods sake, at least have a shred of honesty as in regards to right-wing violence.

20Cent

The numbers being killed by far right extremists are on the increase. 60 in the last year. This is coinciding with much more visibility for such groups and their propaganda it's no coincidence. Plenty of people warned about this and the normalisation of extreme far right views. Part of this is the university tours of people like Richard Spencer.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

The numbers being killed by far right extremists are on the increase. 60 in the last year. This is coinciding with much more visibility for such groups and their propaganda it's no coincidence. Plenty of people warned about this and the normalisation of extreme far right views. Part of this is the university tours of people like Richard Spencer.

If you want to talk about numbers, there were more people killed in the Islamic terrorist attack on Paris late 2015 then some of the recent school shootings,, I can,t recall any posts from you expressing concern about Islamic extremists radicalising others prior to engaging in terrorism but i guess you mightn,t wanna don,t highlight that as much as it might be Islamophobic according to the left wing narrative, or the London attack last summer, one of the attackers appeared in a channel 4 documantary a few months prior ( jihadis next door ) he & others used to man street stalls & engage in recruitment activity- I don,t recall any posts from yourself asking questions like " who else did they mange to radicalise when they engaged in recruitment activity ? " 

"" normalisation of extreme far right views ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Views are just that views,,  holding a view/opinion is not a crime the last time I checked & " [/font]extreme far right views " all depends as what you class as [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" [/font]extreme far right views "  as only a few weeks some known people wit left wing views were complaining about Nigel Farage being left speak at the Rds centre as they classed him as someone with [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" [/font]extreme far right views " , 

LaChatteGitane

I'm wondering how many of the 'free speech' brigade here have parents/grandparents that had close up dealings with nazis during WWII ?

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

The numbers being killed by far right extremists are on the increase. 60 in the last year. This is coinciding with much more visibility for such groups and their propaganda it's no coincidence. Plenty of people warned about this and the normalisation of extreme far right views. Part of this is the university tours of people like Richard Spencer.

"" Part of this is the university tours of people like Richard Spencer. ""

Honest question for everyone- prior to that viral video of Richard Spencer getting sucker punched,, how many people knew of or heard about Richard before that video  went viral ?  cause I say before that video went viral I didn,t know of nor heard about him prior to that, its somewhat Ironic to complain about him getting university tours when one person throwing that sucker punch gave him so much free publicity thus raised his public profile much more .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Part of this is the university tours of people like Richard Spencer. ""

Honest question for everyone- prior to that viral video of Richard Spencer getting sucker punched,, how many people knew of or heard about Richard before that video  went viral ?  cause I say before that video went viral I didn,t know of nor heard about him prior to that, its somewhat Ironic to complain about him getting university tours when one person throwing that sucker punch gave him so much free publicity thus raised his public profile much more .

First time I heard of him was a different viral video. The one of him seig heiling at an event to celebrate trumps wining the election.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No students attended the speaker and his audience of Nazi skinheads have nothing to do with the university that was obliged to host them.

How or why do you think people become radicalized? They don't lick it off stones.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

I'm wondering how many of the 'free speech' brigade here have parents/grandparents that had close up dealings with nazis during WWII ?

Completely irrelevant. None of you can debate the substantial issue of free speech without resorting to hysterical emotional blackmail.

LaChatteGitane

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. None of you can debate the substantial issue of free speech without resorting to hysterical emotional blackmail.

You are being very abrasive.
It is a very emotive subject, even if it doesn't apply to you.
You haven't been very positive about protesters' free speech either, probably because you think they are left.
Free speech comes with consequences whether you like it or not.

DickSwiveller

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

You are being very abrasive.
It is a very emotive subject, even if it doesn't apply to you.
You haven't been very positive about protesters' free speech either, probably because you think they are left.
Free speech comes with consequences whether you like it or not.

Again, this obsession with left and right. I couldn't care less what politics they subscribe to. Please answer the question I've asked a few times without receiving an answer: Who decides who is allowed to speak, and on what basis?

LaChatteGitane

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Again, this obsession with left and right. I couldn't care less what politics they subscribe to. Please answer the question I've asked a few times without receiving an answer: Who decides who is allowed to speak, and on what basis?

It was said here before. hate speech !
Of course, you don't like that answer, but that is not my problem.

Now, answer the question whether either your parents or grandparents were unfortunate enough to be living through and in WWII ?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: DickSwiveller will be taking a short break.

20Cent

There has been a lot of research into how so many normal people became Nazi's in Germany. It is because views considered repulsive and outside the bounds of decent behaviour become normalised.
Normalisation refers to a process that makes something more normal or regular. A bit like the frog being slowly boiled the temperature rises slowly until it's too late. Speaking in places such as universities is a part of that process to make hate normal. As if it's a totally rational think to wish for genocide We should resist this normalisation when possible and fight against it.

The Legend Of Kira

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Again, this obsession with left and right. I couldn't care less what politics they subscribe to. Please answer the question I've asked a few times without receiving an answer: Who decides who is allowed to speak, and on what basis?

It was said here before. hate speech !
Of course, you don't like that answer, but that is not my problem.

Now, answer the question whether either your parents or grandparents were unfortunate enough to be living through and in WWII ?

"" It was said here before. hate speech ""

Hate speech as in hate speech laws you mean ? if so-  as its already being pointed out on this thread there are no so called hate speech laws in the United States,, + public universities in the United States are legally required to uphold the first amendment.

"" [font=DroidSans, sans-serif]University President Kent Fuchs has now told students that he is “shocked” that he must uphold the First Amendment "" .[/font]

[font=DroidSans, sans-serif] http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/10/11/uf-president-shocked-learn-public-university-must-uphold-1st-amendment-video/[/font]

LaChatteGitane

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" It was said here before. hate speech ""

Hate speech as in hate speech laws you mean ? if so-  as its already being pointed out on this thread there are no so called hate speech laws in the United States,, + public universities in the United States are legally required to uphold the first amendment.

"" [font=DroidSans, sans-serif]University President Kent Fuchs has now told students that he is “shocked” that he must uphold the First Amendment "" .[/font]

[font=DroidSans, sans-serif] http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/10/11/uf-president-shocked-learn-public-university-must-uphold-1st-amendment-video/[/font]

I'm not talking about laws.
I'm talking about a moral code between decent human beings. Do you really need laws for that ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jcarroll07

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

It was said here before. hate speech !
Of course, you don't like that answer, but that is not my problem.

Now, answer the question whether either your parents or grandparents were unfortunate enough to be living through and in WWII ?

Hate speech? Totally subjective. E.g you disagreeing with me is hate speech says who says me. I even recently heard one person say telling someone to f off is hate speech. Thats the problem no limits and it is very susceptible as can currently be seen to "concept creep".

LaChatteGitane

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I get your point about Nazi Germany regarding censorship and propaganda.
The thing is, this was the state that upheld the censorship. I would more like it if society would do this. As in not giving a platform to extremists.
You realize that white supremacists/neo-nazis, feminazis, misogynists and islamists are using propaganda to find 'victims' to fight their cause.

I grew up in a time, in mainland Europe, where the war was not thatfar in the past. The atrocities were still fresh in the collective memory. No one would be wearing a swastika on their clothing (for example), no one would ever talk positively about nazism. I'm certain there were people who were of the opinion that Hitler and co were all that, but they wouldn't voice it.
They wouldn't voice it because they wouldn't like the consequences of such 'free speech' and their life wouldn't be worth living, because of society's pressure. Not because of the law.

I've lived through 4 decades of relative pleasantness, peace and quiet. Somehow in the last decade the extremists have gotten a foothold all over the world. Why ? Why is it okay now ?

If for whatever reason a university doesn't want to give a platform to opinions that are not in line with their policies/moral code, then they don't have to give that platform.

LaChatteGitane

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Hate speech? Totally subjective. E.g you disagreeing with me is hate speech says who says me. I even recently heard one person say telling someone to f off is hate speech. Thats the problem no limits and it is very susceptible as can currently be seen to "concept creep".

Hate speech is not about disagreeing with someone, is it? I suggest you google hate speech.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just regarding extremists, they always exist it is just the case that what is defined as extreme changes over time. Today's extremist is tomorrow's centrist and vice versa.
What is detrimental to society-wide productive discourse is when the Overton window of allowable opinion narrows and the term extremist is used as a reason not to engage with members of society with beliefs outside this window.

To quote Brandeis again from the same judgement as Permabear cited earlier "...the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."

20Cent

There are already restrictions on free speech even in the US. You can't threaten someones life, libel them, slander them or advocate violence against them without ending up in legal trouble. A talk titles how to find chil porn without being caught, how to rob a bank etc wouldn't be allowed. Yet a talk advocating genocide seems to be ok.
Maybe some student group should take a civil case against a university to solve this.
The claim that allowing nazi's to speak and then debating them doesn't really work with a talk where there might only be a short time for questions etc at the end. But don't see why a university should be obliged to host these characters and have nazi skinheads on campus. Their very presence is intimidating. Easy to say "man up" but I'd imagine a Jewish person would feel very uncomfortable having their right to live debated as if that is an acceptable thing to do.
Regarding the slippery slope argument plenty of countries have laws against hate speech like the Netherlands and Canada. Countries one wouldn't call oppressive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Got that bit. We also established that certain speach is illegal such as threats. Why Nazi speach isn't considered a threat is probably the better question.

The Legend Of Kira

What one regards as so called hate speech,, others will regard as  legitimate criticism or legitimate form of protest.

Take for example in the past in France anti Israel activists who urge boycott of Israeli goods were found guilty of " hate speech " in court.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

The activists in their view feel their engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but the courts felt differently.
 
( please note even though I don,t agree with them- I don,t believe in trying silence them either.) 

Or another example from France.

""  , former French cinema star Brigitte Bardot is now an avid animal rights activist who has passionately denounced the Islamic practice of ritual slaughter without prior stunning ""

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/18/french-hate-speech-laws-are-less-simplistic-than-you-think/?utm_term=.5b62647ba33f

Brigitte & others will feel this was legitimate criticism ,, but once again the courts felt differently .

Is this the kinda society some people on here actually want where people will be brought to court for urging boycotts or publicly criticising ritual slaughter of animals ?

Or to be hypothetical lets say we if had laws against so called hate speech in Ireland,, take for example anti Scientology protests that were held in Dublin a few months ago.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-scientology-centre-dublin-firhouse-13763163

The protesters feel they re engaging in a  legitimate form of protest,, but what if we had laws against so called hate speech & what if members of Scientology felt these protests were a form of hate speech against them & brought the protesters to court & the people engaging in the protests were fined ? I have to ask would 20cent & others be actually ok with it or would you view it was a violation of free speech ? cause to quote a saying " be careful what you wish for "  .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What one regards as so called hate speech,, others will regard as  legitimate criticism or legitimate form of protest.

Take for example in the past in France anti Israel activists who urge boycott of Israeli goods were found guilty of " hate speech " in court.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

The activists in their view feel their engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but the courts felt differently.
 
( please note even though I don,t agree with them- I don,t believe in trying silence them either.) 

Or another example from France.

""  , former French cinema star Brigitte Bardot is now an avid animal rights activist who has passionately denounced the Islamic practice of ritual slaughter without prior stunning ""

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/18/french-hate-speech-laws-are-less-simplistic-than-you-think/?utm_term=.5b62647ba33f

Brigitte & others will feel this was legitimate criticism ,, but once again the courts felt differently .

Is this the kinda society some people on here actually want where people will be brought to court for urging boycotts or publicly criticising ritual slaughter of animals ?

Or to be hypothetical lets say we if had laws against so called hate speech in Ireland,, take for example anti Scientology protests that were held in Dublin a few months ago.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-scientology-centre-dublin-firhouse-13763163

The protesters feel they re engaging in a  legitimate form of protest,, but what if we had laws against so called hate speech & what if members of Scientology felt these protests were a form of hate speech against them & brought the protesters to court & the people engaging in the protests were fined ? I have to ask would 20cent & others be actually ok with it or would you view it was a violation of free speech ? cause to quote a saying " be careful what you wish for "  .

Slippery slope argument.
Plenty of methods to regulate such things same argument could be said about any law.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The second one is what you consider illegal because it is a call to kill. I'm saying that "the Jews will not replace us, we need a white only ethnostate" is the same thing just not using the word kill.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll kill you next week is ok then?

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nice, so if us ornery old Marxists insert a delay in relation to the commencement of violence we should be fine, in your book so to speak?

Honestly, it's a deal I'm not fussed about but in the interests of getting to the violence eventually I think we can strike a bargain.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not entering this argument, just pointing in a legitimate fashion the absurdity of your point of view there.

Besides, courts used to say I could keep a slave, or oppress women.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't see how there could be a white only state without any violence. Marxism has lost all meaning lately, something to do with transexuals and bathrooms.

20Cent

Havockk wrote: »

I'm not entering this argument, just pointing in a legitimate fashion the absurdity of your point of view there.

Besides, courts used to say I could keep a slave, or oppress women.

I'm going to kill you right now.
I'm going to kill you sometime in the not immediate future.
I think you shouldn't exist.

All similar threats imo.
A Jewish person hearing the above from a Nazi would be equally put in fear by each statement.

ancapailldorcha

20Cent wrote: »

I'll kill you next week is ok then?

Enough of the facetious remarks please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

20Cent

I think the Germans have the right attitude to Nazi's which is zero tolerance. No displays of the swastika or Nazi salutes.

The anti hate laws are good also.

Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Straight forward enough.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

I think the Germans have the right attitude to Nazi's which is zero tolerance. No displays of the swastika or Nazi salutes.  

The anti hate laws are good also.

Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Straight forward enough.

"" Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion,""

If you have such laws designed to stifle criticise of religion you never know where it may lead if someone is brought to court over something they said publicly,, as I referred to examples from France in a recent previous post of mine.

Lets say laws against so called hate speech were in Ireland,, Brid Smith from people before profit could  of been a target of such laws over something she said publicly last year.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]It is time to put the Catholic Church "in the dustbin, where it belongs ( Brid Smith ) " .[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/christianity-is-considered-fair-game-for-attack-so-why-is-criticism-of-muslims-always-islamophobic-35808583.html[/font]

To some people that may be a fair comment,, however to some people who are attend church on a weekly basis that could be seen as " hate speech " in some eyes- if we had similar laws as Germany someone could of made a complaint that she engaged in " hate speech " last year,  but as we don,t have such laws that didn,t happen.

Back in noughties the Blair government in the UK tried to bring in a new law on religious hatred which suffered a defeat in Westminster.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/feb/01/religion.immigrationpolicy

But before it was defeated [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Rowan Atkinson was quoted as saying this publicly to which I fully concur & agree with him.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/font]


[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478381/Atkinson-defends-right-to-offend.html[/font]

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Lets say laws against so called hate speech were in Ireland,, Brid Smith from people before profit could  of been a target of such laws over something she said publicly last year.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]It is time to put the Catholic Church "in the dustbin, where it belongs ( Brid Smith ) " .[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/christianity-is-considered-fair-game-for-attack-so-why-is-criticism-of-muslims-always-islamophobic-35808583.html[/font]

To some people that may be a fair comment,, however to some people who are attend church on a weekly basis that could be seen as " hate speech " in some eyes- if we had similar laws as Germany someone could of made a complaint that she engaged in " hate speech " last year,  but as we don,t have such laws that didn,t happen.

Ireland has an incitement to hatred act.
Brid Smith has not been arrested yet as far as I know. It is possible to word such things in a sensible way.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hold up there. Not all Marxists want to use violence. I’m a little surprised no one has challenged you on that. Revolution doesn’t necessarily mean a violent revolution.

As for the main point. I’m 100% in agreement with you. Freedom to express ideas should be uninhibited in a free society.

This doesn’t mean freedom to defame or libel. This doesn’t mean the freedom to express you ideas without protest or challenge. I don’t think a term as subjective as “hate speech” should be used to punish those who we don’t agree with.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Nazis themselves would have enjoyed a nice cup of coffee - that doesn't mean coffee must be stamped out.

Red_Wake

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Nazis themselves would have enjoyed a nice cup of coffee - that doesn't mean coffee must be stamped out.[/quote]
Did they use coffee as a means of subjugating others though?

Zubeneschamali

Red_Wake wrote: »

Did they use coffee as a means of subjugating others though?

The Nazis used guns and uniforms to subjugate others, so we should ban guns and uniforms.