Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No one is here to defend stupid laws. And no one is naive, least of all myself.

I'm fully aware that I cannot be completely free and that is the price to pay to live in a civilised society. This is the way it has been since the dawn of man, don't obey the laws of the tribe? Then there is no place for you there. Of course we have moved on and it is ourselves that place the limits on what is acceptable. You go too far, for I will not accept the right of anyone to espouse guff like 'we hate blacks' or similar, and if they do, well it's time to pick up some teeth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where have I made such an argument? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

The Legend Of Kira

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

20Cent has previously claimed that hate speech legislation causes no issues in Europe. So is he troubled by the use of this legislation to prosecute and convict anti-Israeli protesters of inciting hatred?[/quote]
I highlighted anti Israel activists being brought to court in France for urging a boycott of Israel goods earlier in this thread.

"" 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.

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.)  ""

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106214845&postcount=482

20cent dodged the questions in my full post-  with his reply.

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


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106215027&postcount=484

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No one is here to defend stupid laws. And no one is naive, least of all myself.

I'm fully aware that I cannot be completely free and that is the price to pay to live in a civilised society. This is the way it has been since the dawn of man, don't obey the laws of the tribe? Then there is no place for you there. Of course we have moved on and it is ourselves that place the limits on what is acceptable. You go too far, for I will not accept the right of anyone to espouse guff like 'we hate blacks' or similar, and if they do, well it's time to pick up some teeth.[/quote]
If you have laws against so called " hate speech " what one may see as a legitimate argument or a legitimate form of protest,, if someone feels its " hate speech " against them-  & if it goes to court its all about what way the court will Interpret things regardless if people agree or disagree with the courts final decision.

Havockk

Allow me to put it this way.

If myself, Permabear and a Jew were standing on a corner drinking Buckfast, and a man walks up and starts telling the Jew he is sub-human garbage.

Who do you think the Jew would rather have beside him. Me or my erstwhile friend Permabear, who thinks that is acceptable?

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Havockk wrote: »

Allow me to put it this way.

If myself, Permabear and a Jew were standing on a corner drinking Buckfast, and a man walks up and starts telling the Jew he is sub-human garbage.

Who do you think the Jew would rather have beside him. Me or my erstwhile friend Permabear, who thinks that is acceptable?

Mod note:

Please don't goad other posters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

PB, I don't think you are a racist or anything else, it's just our lines in the sand are at different places. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our common values. In the ideal world, racism or any of that other crap would not exist, but for as long as it does then absolute free speech is too open to abuse.

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

PB, I don't think you are a racist or anything else, it's just our lines in the sand are at different places. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our common values. In the ideal world, racism or any of that other crap would not exist, but for as long as it does then absolute free speech is too open to abuse.[/quote]
" Racism " & " racist " are terms that get loosely used & loosely thrown around these days .

Examples

Example 1 

Someone describes their experience of living near travellers on a FB thread & gets a typical reply of  " your [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]generalisations are racist " .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Example 2[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A girl asked to change groups in school because only 1 pupil in the group spoke english & she couldn,t understand the rest of the pupils in the group,, the teachers response was to accuse the girl of " racism " .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6047514.stm[/font]

20Cent

Per a quotation often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Nice quote bet it makes one feel super moral and good saying it but complete rubbish. I don't recall anyone dying to rescue Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. Actually right wingers were lining up to condemn them.

Claiming there can't be laws because some authoritarian regime in the future might abuse them is nonsense. It could be said of any law. This thread is like that Jordan Peterson interview. Maybe we shouldn't have Nazi's giving talks on campuses.
So you're saying you want Gulags and book burning.

FFS.

Havockk

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" Racism " & " racist " are terms that get loosely used & loosely thrown around these days .

Examples

Example 1 

Someone describes their experience of living near travellers on a FB thread & gets a typical reply of  " your [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]generalisations are racist " .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Example 2[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A girl asked to change groups in school because only 1 pupil in the group spoke english & she couldn,t understand the rest of the pupils in the group,, the teachers response was to accuse the girl of " racism " .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6047514.stm[/font]

Completely irrelevant.

I accept my little scenario is fairly silly but it gets to the root of the issue. I will not accept that behaviour at all. Others, even if they do not agree with what a racist would say would defend his right to say it.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Per a quotation often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Nice quote bet it makes one feel super moral and good saying it but complete rubbish. I don't recall anyone dying to rescue Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. Actually right wingers were lining up to condemn them.

Claiming there can't be laws because some authoritarian regime in the future might abuse them is nonsense. It could be said of any law. This thread is like that Jordan Peterson interview. Maybe we shouldn't have Nazi's giving talks on campuses.
So you're saying you want Gulags and book burning.

FFS.

I understand your frustration. Free speech, hate speech and incitement to hatred are all fairly thorny issues.

Society at large are free to criticise ideas, but I really do draw the line at legal punishment for the expression of ideas.

Look at the current White house administration. Trump has attacked the free press repeatedly. He's expressed interest in regulating the press. He's expressed interest in amending libel laws to make it easier to sue. Are you telling me someone worse than Trump wouldn't use these laws to imprison dissenters?

Freedom of expression should be sacrosanct in any functioning democracy.

Brian?

Havockk wrote: »

Completely irrelevant.

I accept my little scenario is fairly silly but it gets to the root of the issue. I will not accept that behaviour at all. Others, even if they do not agree with what a racist would say would defend his right to say it.

Defending someone's right to say something, doesn't mean you'd stand idly by while they said it. I will always draw the line at a violent reaction, but that doesn't mean hate speech will go unchallenged.

Free speech means the freedom to express ideas without government retaliation. It doesn't mean the right to say what you want without any repercussion.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Freedom of expression should be sacrosanct in any functioning democracy.

Yes, this.

The poster who alluded that people should be afraid to air their views, should take note.

20Cent

Brian? wrote: »

I understand your frustration. Free speech, hate speech and incitement to hatred are all fairly thorny issues.

Society at large are free to criticise ideas, but I really do draw the line at legal punishment for the expression of ideas.

Look at the current White house administration. Trump has attacked the free press repeatedly. He's expressed interest in regulating the press. He's expressed interest in amending libel laws to make it easier to sue. Are you telling me someone worse than Trump wouldn't use these laws to imprison dissenters?

Freedom of expression should be sacrosanct in any functioning democracy.

Wonder does the black girl afraid in her dorm room because some thugs are chanting we hate blacks outside it appreciate this expression of ideas.

Make no mistake this type pf behaviour is emboldened by the normalisation of such views.

Havockk

Brian? wrote: »

Defending someone's right to say something, doesn't mean you'd stand idly by while they said it. I will always draw the line at a violent reaction, but that doesn't mean hate speech will go unchallenged.

Free speech means the freedom to express ideas without government retaliation. It doesn't mean the right to say what you want without any repercussion.

Well Brian, You could be correct in that assessment but Permabear or others have not adequately explained how they would challenge someone in that kind of situation. Look at the video of that young lady at university - I thought the response was telling. There was no challenge, only comments to point out that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with what had happened.

I find that an unacceptable response. Now I respect your stance on violence, I'd go as far as to say you were a better man than me for I can't make that claim.

Political free speech is another matter. Personally I think Libertarianism is the spawn of Beelzebub, however I don't oppose anyone's right to argue for it. An idea lives and dies on it's own merit.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

Per a quotation often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Nice quote bet it makes one feel super moral and good saying it but complete rubbish. I don't recall anyone dying to rescue Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. Actually right wingers were lining up to condemn them.

Claiming there can't be laws because some authoritarian regime in the future might abuse them is nonsense. It could be said of any law. This thread is like that Jordan Peterson interview. Maybe we shouldn't have Nazi's giving talks on campuses.
So you're saying you want Gulags and book burning.
 
FFS.

I understand your frustration. Free speech, hate speech and incitement to hatred are all fairly thorny issues.

Society at large are free to criticise ideas, but I really do draw the line at legal punishment for the expression of ideas.

Look at the current White house administration. Trump has attacked the free press repeatedly. He's expressed interest in regulating the press. He's expressed interest in amending libel laws  to make it easier to sue. Are you telling me someone worse than Trump wouldn't use these laws to imprison dissenters?

Freedom of expression should be sacrosanct in any functioning democracy.

"" Look at the current White house administration. Trump has attacked the free press repeatedly. He's expressed interest in regulating the press. He's expressed interest in amending libel laws to make it easier to sue. ""

Regarding freedom of the press & what the media should be free to publish- I hold a view that the media should be free to publish stories & articles as long what they re publishing is the actual truth,, if something is published about someone that isn,t true- then it can be classed that as libel/defamation & yes Id support someones right to sue if something untrue about them was published in the newspapers/media.

One example that comes to mind is the News of the worlds name & shame campaign back in 2000,, where they printed articles naming sex offenders- the problem was they named quite a few wrong people as being sex offenders which led to attacks on innocent law abiding citizens .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/newspaper-campaign-led-to-series-of-attacks-on-innocent-people-9225018.html

"" One man has already called in the leading libel specialists Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners. Michael Horgan, a 55-year-old father of two from south London, was targeted by an anti-paedophile group after the News of the World published his name, which he shares with a paedophile who lives in his neighbourhood. The Sunday paper has refused to publish a clarification, and now, Mr Horgan, an engineer, is considering suing the paper for defamation in a claim that could be worth as much as £100,000 in damages.
Mr Horgan's troubles began on 2 August when his name, telephone number and address wrongly appeared on a list of paedophiles circulated in the Lewisham area. Although he was able to convince some of his neighbours that it was a case of mistaken identity he said he was "terrified" by the risk to his family. The police responded by placing a permanent guard on his home and diverting all telephone calls to his home. ""

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/named-shamed-and-suing-711160.html

Once again the media should be free to publish stories/articles as long as what,s being published is actually true .

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Wonder does the black girl afraid in her dorm room because some thugs are chanting we hate blacks outside it appreciate this expression of ideas.

Make no mistake this type pf behaviour is emboldened by the normalisation of such views.

I wouldnt imagine she does. I absolutely detest the shouters. I fell terrible for her. But if we erode our basic freedoms people like that win.

Why is no one in her dorm shouting back?

Brian?

Havockk wrote: »

Well Brian, You could be correct in that assessment but Permabear or others have not adequately explained how they would challenge someone in that kind of situation. Look at the video of that young lady at university - I thought the response was telling. There was no challenge, only comments to point out that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with what had happened.

I find that an unacceptable response. Now I respect your stance on violence, I'd go as far as to say you were a better man than me for I can't make that claim.

Political free speech is another matter. Personally I think Libertarianism is the spawn of Beelzebub, however I don't oppose anyone's right to argue for it. An idea lives and dies on it's own merit.

I'm really shocked that no one in that girls dorm stood up for her. Horrible.

Havockk

Just one other point. Shouting racist statements is not an idea, it's just hate.

20Cent

Havockk wrote: »

Just one other point. Shouting racist statements is not an idea, it's just hate.

Apparently if they put a shirt and tie on. Book a lecture room in a university and say they are identitarians who advocate for a white ethnostate its ok.
I'd see them as being the same thing and should not be allowed.

Eric Cartman

Havockk wrote: »

Just one other point. Shouting racist statements is not an idea, it's just hate.

but where does it stop

a black girl hiding from drunk idiots shouting 'we hate blacks' is pretty widely regarded as hate speech , a lot of people would send them to prison for that.

but say socialists protesting to 'smash capitalism' protesting outside a bank , its hate speech towards capitalists , should they be stopped ?

pro-life protestors calling girls going in to abortion clinics scum and murderers , is that hate speech ?

where do we draw the line on ideologies ?

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Just one other point. Shouting racist statements is not an idea, it's just hate.

They question is, should it be illegal and punishable with a conviction?

Most people agree that its not nice to shout out racist statements, but should we jail everyone who makes such a statement? I guess in your world, the answer would be emphatically be yes, yes we should.

Havockk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but where does it stop

a black girl hiding from drunk idiots shouting 'we hate blacks' is pretty widely regarded as hate speech , a lot of people would send them to prison for that.

but say socialists protesting to 'smash capitalism' protesting outside a bank , its hate speech towards capitalists , should they be stopped ?

pro-life protestors calling girls going in to abortion clinics scum and murderers , is that hate speech ?

where do we draw the line on ideologies ?

Capitalism is an idea. It's fair game to attack it. You don't like me cause I'm a marxist, no bother it's not hate.

markodaly wrote: »

They question is, should it be illegal and punishable with a conviction?

Most people agree that its not nice to shout out racist statements, but should we jail everyone who makes such a statement? I guess in your world, the answer would be emphatically be yes, yes we should.

Yes it should be both illegal and punishable.

Eric Cartman

Havockk wrote: »

Capitalism is an idea. It's fair game to attack it. You don't like me cause I'm a marxist, no bother it's not hate.

but what makes christianity, judaism, islam any different to capitalism, marxism etc... they're all belief systems that are held by choice by individuals, what separates them in the context of hate speech ?

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but where does it stop

a black girl hiding from drunk idiots shouting 'we hate blacks' is pretty widely regarded as hate speech , a lot of people would send them to prison for that.

but say socialists protesting to 'smash capitalism' protesting outside a bank , its hate speech towards capitalists , should they be stopped ?

pro-life protestors calling girls going in to abortion clinics scum and murderers , is that hate speech ?

where do we draw the line on ideologies ?

Capitalism is an idea. It's fair game to attack it. You don't like me cause I'm a marxist, no bother it's not hate.

markodaly wrote: »

They question is, should it be illegal and punishable with a conviction?

Most people agree that its not nice to shout out racist statements, but should we jail everyone who makes such a statement? I guess in your world, the answer would be emphatically be yes, yes we should.

Yes it should be both illegal and punishable.

"" Yes it should be both illegal and punishable. ""

What one might regard as a " racist statement "  others might regard as common sense,, take for example the issue of face covering in public/the burka- last year Ukip had in their party manifesto a pledge to ban the burka,, but some seen this as " racist " given that some seen this as " racist " should it be illegal in your opinion for anyone to publicly express a critical view of face covering/wearing the burka ?

http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/immediate-release-anti-racists-condemn-ukip-manifesto-pledge-ban-burqa/

Havockk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but what makes christianity, judaism, islam any different to capitalism, marxism etc... they're all belief systems that are held by choice by individuals, what separates them in the context of hate speech ?

Attack the institution in that case. Not the individual.

Eric Cartman

Havockk wrote: »

Attack the institution in that case. Not the individual.

"islam is a cancer in Europe" is attacking the institution, hate speech or not ?

Havockk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

"islam is a cancer in Europe" is attacking the institution, hate speech or not ?

As far as I'm concerned all religion is cancer. You are free to attack it, but if you attack the individual muslim, christian or jew, for no other reason than altar they kneel at, then me and you have a problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How many hoops do you wan't be to jump through? Perhaps you would like me to review cases on an individual basis? My last post was categorical.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Yes it should be both illegal and punishable.

That is fine, therefore you do not believe in a free society or any forms of free speech.

You are of course entitled to hold that view but accept that your view is actually draconian and authoritarian.

Chris_Heilong

Racism is at an all time low in the western world, there are not racists everywhere as some would have you believe however with Hate Speech laws or any law that oppresses the masses in a bid to control opinion it will only create resentment where it might not have existed before and so racism may grow.

What I said Earlier still hold true,
We do not know the details involved with that girl at the university, context is everything for example I could say the girl shouting "We hate the whites" which can clearly be heard in the video, however we have the context that she was responding to what the two men had said and can assume she is not a racist just based on her speech. Why did these men target her? we do not know.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

That is fine, therefore you do not believe in a free society or any forms of free speech.

You are of course entitled to hold that view but accept that your view is actually draconian and authoritarian.

I've literally said in this thread already that I don't.

A completely free world, wouldn't that be something.... something terrible. Be careful what you wish for.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

I've literally said in this thread already that I don't.

A completely free world, wouldn't that be something.... something terrible. Be careful what you wish for.

Yes, I know I was just double checking.

I just find it ironic that you want to cast yourself as 'the good guy' yet have no qualms of implementing some sort of totalitarian state for 'the greater good'.

You do know that this philosophy usually ends up with people being in camps for 're-education'?

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I know I was just double checking.

I just find it ironic that you want to cast yourself as 'the good guy' yet have no qualms of implementing some sort of totalitarian state for 'the greater good'.

You do know that this philosophy usually ends up with people being in camps for 're-education'?

For me, it's more about the balance. I like myself a bit of history, and man's inhumanity knows no bounds. We just can't be trusted Mark.

end of the road

Havockk wrote: »

For me, it's more about the balance. I like myself a bit of history, and man's inhumanity knows no bounds. We just can't be trusted Mark.

neither can the state.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

For me, it's more about the balance. I like myself a bit of history, and man's inhumanity knows no bounds. We just can't be trusted Mark.

Humans cannot be trusted, so we strip them of innate freedoms and hand all power to a small bunch of other humans under the guise of the 'greater good'.

That will work out well.

johnp001

The willingness and propensity of individuals to make a principled stand against abuse and harassment is consistent with the belief that absolute free speech is a fundamental right and any abridgement of it by a state is immoral and dangerous.
Individuals can respond proportionally to varying levels of abuse and harassment. When the law is called into play then this is effectively an immediate escalation to infinity because the law will act to take away property and liberty and in some cases even life when it is resisted.
Such an escalation can only be justified in the case where an individual being abused and harrassed is subject to an immediate and credible threat of physical harm.
Society can censure those whose opinions they find abhorrent through the individual right of free association and without need for the initiation of force. This is no violation of the right of free speech.
The desire to have the law counter speech that you deem offensive is just a wish not to have to take personal responsibility for building a society that reflects your views and values.
Where this desire not to be personally responsible for what is acceptable in society is based on the assumption that one is in the "moral majority" and can cede this responsibility to a coercive entity to enforce this majority opinion on their behalf it would be of benefit to give consideration to how this situation would work out if holders of these moral opinions become a minority over time. Would it then be acceptable for an immoral majority to use the force of state power to enforce immoral laws using the resources of moral taxpayers to suppress their views and their right to self expression?

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

The willingness and propensity of individuals to make a principled stand against abuse and harassment is consistent with the belief that absolute free speech is a fundamental right and any abridgement of it by a state is immoral and dangerous.
Individuals can respond proportionally to varying levels of abuse and harassment. When the law is called into play then this is effectively an immediate escalation to infinity because the law will act to take away property and liberty and in some cases even life when it is resisted.
Such an escalation can only be justified in the case where an individual being abused and harrassed is subject to an immediate and credible threat of physical harm.
Society can censure those whose opinions they find abhorrent through the individual right of free association and without need for the initiation of force. This is no violation of the right of free speech.
The desire to have the law counter speech that you deem offensive is just a wish not to have to take personal responsibility for building a society that reflects your views and values.
Where this desire not to be personally responsible for what is acceptable in society is based on the assumption that one is in the "moral majority" and can cede this responsibility to a coercive entity to enforce this majority opinion on their behalf it would be of benefit to give consideration to how this situation would work out if holders of these moral opinions become a minority over time. Would it then be acceptable for an immoral majority to use the force of state power to enforce immoral laws using the resources of moral taxpayers to suppress their views and their right to self expression?

Nice sentiment but like thoughts and prayers after a shooting zero practical use to anyone. Doubt that the student having racist abuse shouted at her would take comfort that at least those people have freedom of speech and it protects her from some possible misuse of such laws in the future.
Richard Spencer is reportedly giving up his policy of speaking in universities not because some libertarian debated him in the error of his ways but because of all those who protest him.
Ideals pure ideologies etc are nice intellectual games but the reality based community see issues that need addressing. Laws come about for a reason because there is a problem. They are not perfect need to be tweaked but it's still better than the alternative.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

They are not perfect need to be tweaked but it's still better than the alternative.

The alternative being what exactly?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

The alternative being what exactly?

A society with no human rights or incitement to hatred laws.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

A society with no human rights or incitement to hatred laws.

Im am sorry, how do we get from having protection for free speech (which you seem to be against) which you then equate to having no human rights.

Quite a bizarre leap and doesn't make sense.

The Legend Of Kira

markodaly wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

A society with no human rights or incitement to hatred laws.

Im am sorry, how do we get from having protection for free speech (which you seem to be against) which you then equate to having no human rights.

Quite a bizarre leap and doesn't make sense.

I think I know what he,s getting at-  although he won,t openly say it, he wants a right to be free from being offended ,, well no so right exists you don,t have a right to be free from being offended from opinions/points of view that you don,t like .

markodaly

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I think I know what he,s getting at-  although he won,t openly say it, he wants a right to be free from being offended ,, well no so right exists you don,t have a right to be free from being offended from opinions/points of view that you don,t like .

Yes, I think we agree here.

The right to not be offended should supersede the right to of free speech, which is the point of this thread. However, free speech is the best bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism we humans have. It should not be given up.

I am sure it is not lost on some here, that we discuss this on the same week that China has installed a 'president' (dictator?) for life, where there has been no dissenting voices aired nor allowed in China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Only two delegates voted against the change while 2964 delegates approved the amendment.

The video is interesting as the word democracy was mentioned a few times. I am not sure how installing a president for life which the people had no say in, is either democratic or good for 'democracy'. Yet, we live in a world where words can change to suit the paradigm.

Much like how stripping away rights to freedom of speech somehow 'protects' human rights.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Im am sorry, how do we get from having protection for free speech (which you seem to be against) which you then equate to having no human rights.

Quite a bizarre leap and doesn't make sense.

I'm against Nazi's being given platforms by universities. I see a group like that giving a talk as the same as the people singing we hate blacks outside a dorm room. The person the hatred was aimed at has a human right not to have to live in fear just because of their skin colour.
No one believes in absolute freedom of speach even if they pretend to be absolutist about it they have a line. There has always been restrictions and laws about it. Libel, criminal etc. They aren't seen as controversial.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I think we agree here.

The right to not be offended should supersede the right to of free speech, which is the point of this thread. However, free speech is the best bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism we humans have. It should not be given up.

I am sure it is not lost on some here, that we discuss this on the same week that China has installed a 'president' (dictator?) for life, where there has been no dissenting voices aired nor allowed in China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Only two delegates voted against the change while 2964 delegates approved the amendment.

The video is interesting as the word democracy was mentioned a few times. I am not sure how installing a president for life which the people had no say in, is either democratic or good for 'democracy'. Yet, we live in a world where words can change to suit the paradigm.

Much like how stripping away rights to freedom of speech somehow 'protects' human rights.

Do you think that no action should be taken against those people singing we hate blacks in the dorm room? That jihadists should be also given a platform in universities?