Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If they are calling to kill People yes of course.

Do you think an Isis member should be allowed free speech in a college to spread their ideology and recruit?

johnp001

Havockk wrote: »

So basically private institutions can do as they please, or set rules to deny free speech whilst public ones must at all times permit ALL free speech?


Why can the same rules not apply to both?

Every private individual discriminates all the time against speech they object to whenever we choose what to listen to and what not to listen to. We all unilaterally "no-platform" speakers we disagree with all the time. It is hard to imagine it could be otherwise.
But if you and I are both forced to pay taxes to fund a university or other publicly funded institution that provides a forum for public speech and debate and it decides to allow only me to speak and not you then this is unjust and is a violation of first amendment rights in the US

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Surely you wouldn't ban a radical Marxist from speaking?

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

Every private individual discriminates all the time against speech they object to whenever we choose what to listen to and what not to listen to. We all unilaterally "no-platform" speakers we disagree with all the time. It is hard to imagine it could be otherwise.
But if you and I are both forced to pay taxes to fund a university or other publicly funded institution that provides a forum for public speech and debate and it decides to allow only me to speak and not you then this is unjust and is a violation of first amendment rights in the US

So anybody can rock up to a public university and demand facilities to hold a public speech with no quality control or standards. The university have to accommodate them?

20Cent

Richard Spencer is speaking in Michigan State University today. One of his followers arrested for pointing a gun at someone already. Dozens of violent Nazi skinheads on campus. University obliged to host them outrageous allowing these thugs endanger staff and students. Of course the private universities don't have to put up with this.

ancapailldorcha

Havockk wrote: »

Don't hide behind that public/private manure. You either believe in the freedom of speech or you don't.

You actions lead me to believe that you don't. but enjoy saying you do.

Mod: I understand that this is an emotive issue. However, please refrain from abrasive language such as the above.

The Legend Of Kira

Reports are coming in that masked Antifa thugs tried to stop a free speech event from taking place & got removed by security- proper order .

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/970800577188806657

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/970773682833391616

https://twitter.com/lucyfrown/status/970734741061332993

Chris_Heilong

^^^Antifa are violent scumbags.

Havockk

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

^^^Antifa are violent scumbags.

A good win for Antifa, event cancelled.

Chris_Heilong

Havockk wrote: »

A good win for Antifa, event cancelled.

Not really, all fascists like Antifa achieve is to bring more attention to the speakers they are trying to shut down and more doors open to these speakers, logic and truth will always win out.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Not really, all fascists like Antifa achieve is to bring more attention to the speakers they are trying to shut down and more doors open to these speakers, logic and truth will always win out.

This old chestnut, Antifa are not fascists. They don’t really seem to have a pity unifying philosophy beyond opposing fascists. It’s become popular to go give them a label most people dislike, but it’s disingenuous at best. It’s a lazy way of labeling people you don’t agree with.

In reality Antifa is a lose coalition of Marxists and anarchists from what I can find out. Some are authoritarian, some are not. They’re generally too violent for my liking. They are many things, but they are certainly not fascists.

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Reports are coming in that masked Antifa thugs tried to stop a free speech event from taking place & got removed by security- proper order .

It wasn’t a “free speech event”. It was a debate. What happened was wrong, so why the embellishment of the story? Is it to make one or both of the speakers sound more heroic?

ancapailldorcha

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

^^^Antifa are violent scumbags.

No name calling, please.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Slippery slope argument. Plenty of countries have incitement to hatred laws and aren't considered places where speech is overly restricted.
You in favour of jihadist making calls for attacks then? Same thing as what these Nazi's are doing.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It has nothing to do with money and then proceeds to explain why because of money🀔

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not true.

/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-27809890


"He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order."

A member of the public made a complaint about hate speech which was dismissed.

johnp001

The actual quote from the BBC story linked in the post above is

He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal order and on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

or a former Chancellor of Germany, I suppose.

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

The actual quote from the BBC story linked in the post above is

"He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order".


He wasn't arrested for "reading Churchill quotes". All charges were also dropped. So the premise that is illegal to read those quotes in public is incorrect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

20Cent wrote: »

Plenty of countries have incitement to hatred laws and aren't considered places where speech is overly restricted.

Depends on which side of the coin you are.

20Cent wrote: »

"He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order."

The easiest way to detain someone is to ask them to move when you know that they won't. Once arrested, you can release them without charge at a later stage.

johnp001

the_syco wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"ASBO" type laws like these are also a massive assault on civil liberties.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not only can the laws be used as described in Permabear's post but can also criminalise people (as young as 10 under the UK law) without the state having to bear the burden of proving criminal behaviour.

National Council for Civil Liberties wrote:

Civil orders can be imposed on a person who has never been found guilty of any offence, and can be imposed for behaviour that is not criminal, but breach of the order becomes a criminal offence.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If he's left when asked to he wouldn't have been arreseted.
He was released without charge anyway so saying quoting Churchill is now illegal is not true.

Hampshire Police has now communicated to Mr Weston:

"You were bailed on 26th April 2014, under the provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/ Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence. Police enquiries have now been completed and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, it has been decided that no further police action will be taken.

Ireland, the UK, Canada most of Europe have laws against hate speech and they are countries considered to be very free.

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

If he's left when asked to he wouldn't have been arreseted.
He was released without charge anyway so saying quoting Churchill is now illegal is not true.

Hampshire Police has now communicated to Mr Weston:

"You were bailed on 26th April 2014, under the provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/ Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence. Police enquiries have now been completed and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, it has been decided that no further police action will be taken.

Ireland, the UK, Canada most of Europe have laws against hate speech and they are countries considered to be very free.

Those laws are too loose and open to abuse of interpretation and used as a tool to silence people who might for example hold the view that there are only two genders, white privilege does not exist, intersectionality is a racist concept and ideas of that nature that do not go along with leftist world view, I am sure these people dont feel very free, at least when it comes to speaking their mind.

20Cent

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Those laws are too loose and open to abuse of interpretation and used as a tool to silence people who might for example hold the view that there are only two genders, white privilege does not exist, intersectionality is a racist concept and ideas of that nature that do not go along with leftist world view, I am sure these people dont feel very free, at least when it comes to speaking their mind.

Who would they be?
I recall during the same sex marriage referendum there was robust debate about gender, religion, sexual orientation etc and no one got dragged away to the gulag.

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

Who would they be?
I recall during the same sex marriage referendum there was robust debate about gender, religion, sexual orientation etc and no one got dragged away to the gulag.

I know lots of people that held beliefs that were in opposition to that referendum but never spoke out for fear of being penalised socially and in that kind of environment it would not take much for something to be interpreted as hate speech.

An example would be the Scottish youtube comedian who taught his girlfriends pug to do the nazi salute as a joke and he ended up in court for his video under hate speech laws. His life is basically ruined.
Here he is talking about his trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy64xTwjZMk

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Released without charge again.
So no it's not illegal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who's not getting the point? You're making a sweeping generalisation over the one moronic policeman making a moronic decision. Obviously it's not illegal when there was no prosecution and resulted in a release.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah christians are living in fear in the UK, Ireland and Canade.
Give me a break with the pearl clutching.
Stupid cop does stupid thing big surprise. The guy even got compensation so obviously a mistake was made. Any law or rule can be exagerated to a huge degree to claim it's opressive. Last part is just made up straw man.

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

It has nothing to do with money and then proceeds to explain why because of money🀔

I think you've missed the underlying point there vis-a-vis public funding.

20Cent

Is this freedom of speech?


https://twitter.com/rufarochisango_/status/971452205181161472



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-43328566

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

Is this freedom of speech?


https://twitter.com/rufarochisango_/status/971452205181161472



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-43328566

Looking at things objectively and without emotion.
There is not very much information on why this happened or what lead up to this, why was this woman targeted?

It is good that these guys got arrested as goonish behavior is unacceptable but I have seen here in Ireland when low intelligent people get into an insult match they will usually attack something about you that is different, like for example if you had red hair or if you wore glasses, if you were fat or if you were really thin or even the colour of your skin would be used as weapons against you. Was she targeted because she was Black or was she just targeted?
We are living in the least racist time in the western world that we have ever lived and I hope isolated incidents like this one remain the exception.

WomanSkirtFan8

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

Agreed. Its more to do with the right to have an opinion rather than so-called freedom of speech. Remember freedom speech = freedom of opinion.

Eric Cartman

20Cent wrote: »

Is this freedom of speech?


https://twitter.com/rufarochisango_/status/971452205181161472



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-43328566

Its not nice butit shouldnt be illegal or punishable either

wes

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its not nice butit shouldnt be illegal or punishable either

:rolleyes: Positions like yours are why some people see free speech as a bad thing. What those guys were doing was harassment and it should be illegal and punishable. People have every right to go about there day, without racists harassing them.

end of the road

johnp001 wrote: »

"ASBO" type laws like these are also a massive assault on civil liberties.

that's the whole point of them IMO. of course in relation to a number of crimes they don't actually work, but i suppose in relation to "crimes" it's a long game and eventually they may begin to work once there are enough of them in place and people begin to "fall in line"

johnp001 wrote: »

"Not only can the laws be used as described in Permabear's post but can also criminalise people (as young as 10 under the UK law) without the state having to bear the burden of proving criminal behaviour.

jesus that is seriously scarey stuff.

20Cent wrote: »

If he's left when asked to he wouldn't have been arreseted.
He was released without charge anyway so saying quoting Churchill is now illegal is not true.

Hampshire Police has now communicated to Mr Weston:

"You were bailed on 26th April 2014, under the provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in connection with an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/ Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence. Police enquiries have now been completed and after careful consideration of all the circumstances, it has been decided that no further police action will be taken.

Ireland, the UK, Canada most of Europe have laws against hate speech and they are countries considered to be very free.

lets be honest, they were ultimately going to arrest him for reading from that book. someone apparently complained so that was more ammunition. asking him to leave knowing he wouldn't comply, was the only way they could arrest him, so they did that. you are correct that it's not specifically illegal to quote somebody, or read quotes from a book. but other laws can be used to indirectly deal with something that the state or police find unacceptible and that is what happened and is happening in the uk.
look as you know i don't have time for hate speach myself, but i'm not naive to the fact that the uk police, either of their own accord or at the dictat of the state, are involved in using other laws as an indirect way to try to silence views that don't specifically breach any law and which, while i wouldn't agree with said views, don't constitute hate speach.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People should be afraid to express certain views.

If you were to shout something like the two twats in the video earlier, in front of me, then you are getting violently attacked.

Brian?

Havockk wrote: »

People should be afraid to express certain views.

Who decides what views are prohibited?

If you were to shout something like the two twats in the video earlier, in front of me, then you are getting violently attacked.

You control your own reaction. Giving the power to hate filled ideologues gives them the power and undermines your principles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As long as you stand idly by and demand things like overt racism be acceptable, I reserve the right to oppose it by any and all means necessary.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where's this happening?

So the guys singing we hate blacks outside a black girls dormroom are just expressing an unpopular opinion but should be allowed do so? What about the girl terrified? Tough luck.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Legend Of Kira

I read about this during the week.



https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10622

Do some on this thread who favour sanctions/punishment for expressing the wrong opinion agree & support barring students from class when they question a political narrative ?