DaveDodo007 wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:DaveDodo007 wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:
Bull fucking shit. If you believed in free speech you wouldn't have remarked with amazement that she is "allowed" to say what she says. There would be zero need for that remark. Own your fucking words, or do your usual trick of claiming you were drunk and made an unintentional mistake.
To be fair you are not living in the UK so you might not know about the 'hate speech laws' we have here. I don't approve of them but if they exist they should be applied equally.
but you claimed you are for absolute free speech. You can't even maintain a straight story over three or four posts.
I am but if we have (stupid) laws why I'm I wrong to expect them to be applied consistently. I'm a member of quite a few free speech organizations in the UK but we are losing battle after battle. Free speech is dead in the UK.
Rev -- Dodo is saying that he is in favor of everyone having the same rights to free speech, and it should be, in his preferred world, "absolute" free speech. However, if we are going to have hate speech laws, then he wants the feminists engaging in hate speech to be the same as others whose speech has been disallowed.
My view on it is that the advocacy of ideas ought not be limited by the State, even racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful, global warming denying, holocaust doubting, moon hoaxing, 9/11 conspiracy, and advocacy of the overthrow of the government speech.... you name it -- men are pigs, they don't know their way around the kitchen, can't take care of babies, and especially the white ones, who whinge on and on because they are white, and those awful CIS gendered heteros -- they suck the worst -- all of them should be rounded up and put in camps, and if they cry, let's spike their tears with vodka and have a party -- hope they die of cancer so we can protest their funerals with "God Hates Straights" signs and dance about on their graves singing hallelujah.
What speech is properly within the scope of government censure -- (a) speech which is both FALSE and INJURIOUS -- i.e. not merely false, and not merely injurious, but false AND injurious (like advertising where they lie and defraud people -- statements made in the sales of securities to defraud people - defamation of character); (b) noncommunicative speech -- in terms of speech which does not actually communicate an opinion or point of view, and which is merely designed to provoke or injure, and which actually does provoke or injury -- such as standing outside someone's house with a loudspeaker and screaming expletives or badgering the person -- or, fighting words -- such as someone picking a fight with someone else directly (in these kinds of cases the words hardly matter -- it's the circumstances that are more controlling -- someone yelling outside your house and screaming even nursery rhymes would be damaging). (c) direct threats to life/limb and/or the advocacy of immediate lawless and violent action (in other words, you can say that all whites should die, but you can't say "Hey! There's John Smith! Kill Him! Hang him!" attempting to incite the mob to kill the guy. (d) criminal conspiracies, where there has been some concrete conduct toward completion of the ends of the conspiracy (i.e., you can talk about how to buy and use illegal heroin, but if you take steps to organize or obtain the heroin, then the conspiracy can be prosecuted). Those kinds of things.
So, the limits on free speech should be narrowly construed and should be only so broad as to protect against actual injuries and actual threats. If a person expresses a racist opinion against white people, and a white person "feels" injured by it because it hurts his feelings or upsets him because someone is racist against whites, well, that'st he breaks. That's free speech. The opinion of the listener does not effect the right of the peaceful speaker to speak. If the speaker threatens the listener specifically, or defrauds him, or defames him, or inflicts injury (not ,mere offense), then it could properly criminalized.
Prior restraints are almost always improper. I.e., the State can rarely say in advance what is lawful speech.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
