Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

Soo... free speech only for people we agree with then?

No country ever formulated free speech to allow people to spread malicious, deliberate and dangerous lies. Anti-abortionists are free to say whatever they want as long as they keep to the truth.

But the fact is that they don't want to keep to the truth, because if they did, all they'd have left to say is "sorry, I got nothing. But I still want to force my personal religious views on everybody else."

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No country ever formulated free speech to allow people to spread malicious, deliberate and dangerous lies. Anti-abortionists are free to say whatever they want as long as they keep to the truth.

But the fact is that they don't want to keep to the truth, because if they did, all they'd have left to say is "sorry, I got nothing. But I still want to force my personal religious views on everybody else."

That is not what free speech laws around the world says unless one is talking about defamation or libel against a living person.

Also, one can be pro-life and an Atheist.

K4t

jank wrote: »

Also, one can be pro-life and an Atheist.

And both atheists and religious people can be closed minded idiots.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No country ever formulated free speech to allow people to spread malicious, deliberate and dangerous lies. Anti-abortionists are free to say whatever they want as long as they keep to the truth.

But the fact is that they don't want to keep to the truth, because if they did, all they'd have left to say is "sorry, I got nothing. But I still want to force my personal religious views on everybody else."

Surely free speech means Anti-abortionists are free to spread lies. Religion spreads misguided, backward beliefs, though the problem isn't the lies or the backward beliefs themselves, but that they are accorded equal importance to rational, scientific beliefs.

jank

K4t wrote: »

And both atheists and religious people can be closed minded idiots.

Correct. There is no monopoly on being stupid.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No country ever formulated free speech to allow people to spread malicious, deliberate and dangerous lies. Anti-abortionists are free to say whatever they want as long as they keep to the truth.

Nah.. I don't think any country requires free speech to be 'the truth' (which is a fairly contentious concept anyway). There are certainly limits on how and what untruthful things can be said, but they generally don't amount to 'opinions we don't like', thankfully.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But the fact is that they don't want to keep to the truth, because if they did, all they'd have left to say is "sorry, I got nothing. But I still want to force my personal religious views on everybody else."

I really don't think expressing your opinion of abortion (even if your opinion isn't based on fact) amounts to forcing your personal religious views on everybody else. At best it's presenting them for the consideration of those in the immediate vicinity.

Hotblack Desiato

So how far should the free speech of anti-aborts go?

The dead foetus pictures in public (kids, pregnant women, etc around??) - Arguably illegal under Ireland's public order act but never prosecuted afaik.


In America, and on a scale from least to most offensive:

- Picketing abortion clinics, saying rosaries. Most people would agree is acceptable protest

- Placards saying abortion is murder, graphic pictures.

- Getting in the faces of women and their partners, calling them murderers

- Taking photos of women

- Putting these photos online

- Inviting the public to name and shame women seeking abortion, get them sacked from their jobs etc


All are 'free speech' but I don't see why society has to tolerate free speech when it crosses over into harassment and abuse. There is no unqualified absolute right to free speech in any society, not even the US.

pH

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All are 'free speech' but I don't see why society has to tolerate free speech when it crosses over into harassment and abuse. There is no unqualified absolute right to free speech in any society, not even the US.

Fine but if taking pictures in public of people doing something and posting it online is harassment and needs to be banned, then it needs to be banned in every case. So if you wanted to take pictures of say the "God Hates Fags" protest groups and post them online that would would also be illegal. the same thing people going to a National Front rally, it's either harassment and abuse to photograph them or not, a situation where it's acceptable only in cases you approve of would be extreme hypocrisy.

Harassment thanks to a small group of internet loons has because quite a buzzword, but for me at least it needs some component of a sustained duration - following someone for a period, stalking them is definitely harassment, but standing somewhere in public and merely photographing those who come to you is hardly "harassment".

The right to photograph is public is an extremely important one, but if we as sheeple scream loud enough maybe we can get the government to take it away from us.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

I would tend to a principle that adults are free to express themselves however they want , but given that indiduals have rights to certain protections and space owners have rights to manage their space as they fit rights by definition are bounded quite rightly.
I would disagree with the concept that expressions have to be valid though. Part of being a learning society is the freedom to spout bs maybe learn from it later and be called out on it in the meantime.

pH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But when you consider how quickly Google caved in on their streetview, it's clear we're not a million miles from it. Somehow google taking pictures in a public space was an "invasion of privacy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns

Also I read this today, probably relevant to this thread:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices

As much as I despise a lot of right-wing thinking as selfish nonsense, I think on balance I'm more OK with it than any ideology where the notion of "trigger warnings" is taken seriously.

KomradeBishop

People who have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' are protected from being photographed - and Google Streetview, seeing as it easily ends up taking pictures inside of peoples private property, obviously has the potential for violating this.

I doubt anybody here is against protecting the rights of photographers, to take pictures in public places, but people recognize there is a balance to be struck between different rights.

Civil Libertarians (which I'd credit most, if not all, posters here of being) should have a particular appreciation, of the dangers of growing privacy breaches and even surveillance, by corporations, as well as by the state.

KomradeBishop

That Guardian article you posted is a good one - fixed link here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices

In part of it he mentions: "Identity politics is one of the most significant developments of the last 50 years, but it has led to nerves being exposed in a way they rarely were by economic issues. Because identity is less about politics and more about that most sensitive of human constructions, the protection of the self – both group and individual."

That seems to resonate a lot with something I posted the other day, the 'System Justification Theory' in psychology, which tries to explain how people come to be stuck believing false things, how this can manifest in protecting the 'status quo' by default, and how identity politics i.e. protection of beliefs about 'the self' and 'the group' someone identifies with, play a part in this.

I would say this is definitely something the left are enormously guilty of, when it comes to protecting the status quo in economic beliefs (not unique among the left though - you see it as much on 'the right', e.g. how economic discussion on Boards is always very 'tribal') - it helps neoclassical/neoliberal economics stay dominant among the left (when ironically, it is actually very right-wing), and it guarantees that more radical groups like Marxists stay fractious/divided (protecting the status quo of their own small groups), which is leaving 'the left' divided overall, unable to really come together enough to mount a proper challenge to the political/economic status quo (despite plenty of perfectly viable solutions to present economic problems, being available - that 'the left' should have taken up by now).

Hotblack Desiato

pH wrote: »

Fine but if taking pictures in public of people doing something and posting it online is harassment and needs to be banned, then it needs to be banned in every case.

Taking a photo is in itself fine, but what you do with it might not be.

So if you wanted to take pictures of say the "God Hates Fags" protest groups and post them online that would would also be illegal. the same thing people going to a National Front rally, it's either harassment and abuse to photograph them or not, a situation where it's acceptable only in cases you approve of would be extreme hypocrisy.

But in a protest you are marching under a banner (literally or metaphorically) and you are actually trying to garner attention.
There are people in Ireland who would have realistic fears for their jobs if photographed and pubished widely (e.g. newspaper or internet) at a pro-choice protest, and if the employer is a religious organisation it can be legal to sack them - so some people have to weigh up very carefully the possible consequences of exercising their right to legal speech.

However seeking medical treatment is nothing like going on a protest. It is, or rather should be, an entirely private matter.
Nobody should be hanging around with a camera outside an STD clinic and posting snaps up on Facebook, they shouldn't do it outside an abortion clinic either.

Problem here is that in places like the US, abortion is so stigmatised it is often not offered in normal healthcare settings. If a woman was walking into a normal hospital then nobody knows what treatment she's seeking and it's none of their damn business. If she's walking into an abortion clinic, it's obvious what she is looking for, even though it's still none of their damn business.

Harassment thanks to a small group of internet loons has because quite a buzzword, but for me at least it needs some component of a sustained duration - following someone for a period, stalking them is definitely harassment, but standing somewhere in public and merely photographing those who come to you is hardly "harassment".

That's in the eye of the photographed, if you had a funny rash would you be happy if there was a church group snapping everyone going into the STD clinic?

The right to photograph is public is an extremely important one, but if we as sheeple scream loud enough maybe we can get the government to take it away from us.

I entirely agree, but the best way to have a right restricted or have it taken away is if those exercising it do so in an unethical or irresponsible way.

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But in a protest you are marching under a banner (literally or metaphorically) and you are actually trying to garner attention.
There are people in Ireland who would have realistic fears for their jobs if photographed and pubished widely (e.g. newspaper or internet) at a pro-choice protest, and if the employer is a religious organisation it can be legal to sack them - so some people have to weigh up very carefully the possible consequences of exercising their right to legal speech.

This bit of your post reminds me of an expose of a Youth Defence-affiliated neo-fascist group, who posted pictures of people in pro-choice rallies in their Facebook group. One of the comments was "hasta la vista antifascista", it honestly read like something you'd expect on of the extremist Catholics from t'udder forum to say.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So how far should the free speech of anti-aborts go?

I'd say as far as possible without infringing on the liberties of others; though the liberty of not seeing (as distinct from not being forced to see) things you don't like is not one I think people have any right to.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The dead foetus pictures in public (kids, pregnant women, etc around??) - Arguably illegal under Ireland's public order act but never prosecuted afaik.

I suspect if someone thought they could argue it was illegal they'd try;there's no lack of cash on either side for taking a punt on a publicity garnering court case.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In America, and on a scale from least to most offensive:
Picketing abortion clinics, saying rosaries. Most people would agree is acceptable protest
Placards saying abortion is murder, graphic pictures.
Getting in the faces of women and their partners, calling them murderers
Taking photos of women
Putting these photos online
Inviting the public to name and shame women seeking abortion, get them sacked from their jobs etc
All are 'free speech' but I don't see why society has to tolerate free speech when it crosses over into harassment and abuse. There is no unqualified absolute right to free speech in any society, not even the US.

Leaving aside which are offensive as not being worth discussing, so on the basis of not infringing on the liberties of others my guess is impeding other peoples movements (Getting in the faces of women and their partners), libelling them (calling them murderers), procuring libel (Inviting the public to name and shame women seeking abortion) and getting people sacked from their jobs (which might require a little more detail) would all fall outside the ambit of free speech for anyone, regardless of whether they are 'anti-aborts' or anything else.

pH

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's in the eye of the photographed, if you had a funny rash would you be happy if there was a church group snapping everyone going into the STD clinic?

You see this is exactly where all these arguments fall apart, it matters not a jot how happy I'd be, you;re right I'd be most unhappy, but to quote Mr Fry, " f.cking what?"

I'd be extremely annoyed, yet I'd support their right to do it. The only people who have a leg to stand on in a free speech debate are those standing up for people whose opinions they themselves strongly oppose. Its easy to divide the world into things you agree with and things you don't and argue for the suppression of one group, yes you can play lazy intellectual games pretending that there are good reasons to stop people doing the things you disagree with but at the bottom of it there's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.

It's almost like a litmus test, if racists and homophobes are speaking freely then that's a good indication that wherever that's happening speech is pretty free.

Hotblack Desiato

And the people along the way whose lives and careers are damaged by racists, homophobes and bigots are just collateral damage of unrestrained free speech, is that it?

Just because people have a right to do something, doesn't mean that exercising that right in a particular way is always just, ethical or responsible - that's the point I was trying to make.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

100% agree. Far too often we see these issues deliberately conflated in order to shut down any debate on issues.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

100% agree. Far too often we see these issues deliberately conflated in order to shut down any debate on issues.

This pisses me off no end.
Oh you think this aspect of X is agreeable? You support ALL X! You are an x-ist!

No where does it piss me off more than discussions of Israel.
Criticise something by Israel: anti Semitic.
See something by Israel as a decent: zionist.

The idea that you can do both seems beyond some people.

robindch

Never thought to look for the hashtag "#PCgonemad". But, good lord, there's so much there to be shocked and horrified at! And all of it caused by libruls too!

https://twitter.com/hashtag/pcgonemad

Shocked, I tells ya. Shocked!!

The Black Oil

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So how far should the free speech of anti-aborts go?


- Taking photos of women

- Putting these photos online

- Inviting the public to name and shame women seeking abortion, get them sacked from their jobs etc

All are 'free speech' but I don't see why society has to tolerate free speech when it crosses over into harassment and abuse. There is no unqualified absolute right to free speech in any society, not even the US.

I think the response you can go for here is not to curtail liberties with regard to photographs, but rather undermine what these people are trying to do. It's a minority and the behaviours of some (and it is just that) anti-abortion protestors are highly judgemental. Focus on their tone, actions and intent. Hard to do when they're quite personal, no doubt.

Nodin wrote: »

Could we change the title of this thread to "Shit US college students do?"

Presumably since, as alluded to in the video, there's a broader pattern of liberal intolerance that's part of, and possibly not confined to, college campuses. That might be a handy talking point or narrative for some, of course, but by the sounds of things it's not without some merit. If I were studying in a US college now and joined club/society that was acting the maggot in an intolerant way I'd feel obliged to call them out on it as a point of principle, as a progressive.

Any thoughts on the NUS conference?

pH

Deleted User wrote: »

Any thoughts on the NUS conference?

what with the jazz hands and the motion to protect black female culture from white gay men I think they're keeping lots of the internet amused for 10 minutes at least.

wp_rathead

Some rather bizarre motions being put forward alright has to be said
They wouldn't condemn ISIS atrocities yet condemns white male homosexuals for "acting like black women."
Others include want to get rid of prisoners and want to ban straight males dressing up as women at Halloween?

Pherekydes

wprathead wrote: »

...and want to ban straight males dressing up as women at Halloween?

What about other times?









/shuffles uncomfortably

Nodin

wprathead wrote: »

Some rather bizarre motions being put forward alright has to be said
They wouldn't condemn ISIS atrocities yet condemns white male homosexuals for "acting like black women."
Others include want to get rid of prisoners and want to ban straight males dressing up as women at Halloween?

The decline in my social life and general carousing has left me in great ignorance of these modern habits.

Links234

Deleted User wrote: »

Any thoughts on the NUS conference?

Total and utter disaster, the **** were they thinking?

Sarah Savage makes a very good point here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/comment-why-the-nus-policy-condeming-cross-dressing-is-offensive/

First off, how dare they ban cross-dressing!

For years I myself identified as a cross-dresser, my first time in public presenting as female was at a Halloween fancy dress party, I’ll never forget it as one of the most liberating experiences of my life and it set in motion a path which led to transition.

By banning gender fluidity the NUS are actively discriminating against gender variant people who are yet to fully understand their gender, and those who are still in the closet.

Hotblack Desiato

Condemning people who aren't doing any harm to others is what religions do :rolleyes:

jank

In relation to universities and their policy of 'free speech':

http://www.littleatoms.com/queens-university-belfast-cancels-charlie-hebdo-conference