Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 11:01AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whataboutery. You already indicated you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech only difference is where one draws the line. I'd say advocating genocide is worse than showing how to hack an atm.

Permabear · 16-02-2018 11:05AM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 11:25AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ideally a much larger counter demonstration would drown them out.

How to hack an atm should be banned.
Talk by Nazi's not banned!!!!!

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2018 11:25AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Call an ambulance to go and collect what's left of the neo-Nazi.

Professor Moriarty · 16-02-2018 11:48AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Call an ambulance to go and collect what's left of the neo-Nazi.

You'll need more than one ambulance as the supporters of the neo-Nazi react to the protestors' violence. Violent protest at a lawful event is never the answer.

Permabear · 16-02-2018 11:51AM

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 11:55AM

20Cent wrote: »

Ideally a much larger counter demonstration would drown them out.

How to hack an atm should be banned.
Talk by Nazi's not banned!!!!!

You would have loved the Soviet Union. They were fond of silencing political opponents.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:13PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. I dont like them, and equally I dont want to act like them so the answer if one is to be intellectually consistent is yes. Same with communists and other extremists.

Permabear · 16-02-2018 12:17PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:17PM

White supremacist group Republic of Florida have claimed the Florida shooter as a member. This group has also provided security at Richard Spencer events. These are the people we are supposed to allow speak freely in universities.

No thanks.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:18PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ignore all points made.
Bang on about some made up scenario and pick holes in the answers.
We've had this dance before permabear it's boring.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:21PM

20Cent wrote: »

White supremacist group Republic of Florida have claimed the Florida shooter as a member. This group has also provided security at Richard Spencer events. These are the people we are supposed to allow speak freely in universities.

No thanks.

Ok that answers that then, we or I (not going to talk on others behalf) believe in free speech meaning even when we fundamentally disagree which you may not understand is the basic principle of free speech. You on the other hand believe in licensed speech. So now we know where we stand.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:22PM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ok that answers that then, we or I (not going to talk on others behalf) believe in free speech meaning even when we fundamentally disagree which you may not understand is the basic principle of free speech. You on the other hand believe in licensed speech. So now we know where we stand.

You don't believe in absolute free speech either.
We just draw the line in different places.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:25PM

20Cent wrote: »

You don't believe in absolute free speech either.
We just draw the line in different places.

Where did I mention and draw a line above? I will for the sake of transparency and since you are asking to save you some time clarify that the only limitation i would apply would be along the lines of American jurisprudence the "immediate incitement to unlawfulness or violence". Hope that clarifies it for you if there was any misunderstanding

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:30PM

The guy in the left is Matthew Heimbach a white supremacist leader currently giving talks in colleges. The guy on the right is the leader of the Republic of Florida group which claims the Florida shooter is a member.

We should give them a platform and allow them to recruit with no pushback?

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:32PM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Where did I mention and draw a line above? I will for the sake of transparency and since you are asking to save you some time clarify that the only limitation i would apply would be along the lines of American jurisprudence the "immediate incitement to unlawfulness or violence". Hope that clarifies it for you if there was any misunderstanding

Totally agree my line is in the same place as yours.
Only difference is what we consider immediate incitement etc

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:35PM

20Cent wrote: »

The guy in the left is Matthew Heimbach a white supremacist leader currently giving talks in colleges. The guy on the right is the leader of the Republic of Florida group which claims the Florida shooter is a member.

We should give them a platform and allow them to recruit with no pushback?

Amazing thing about free speech is that you can refute and rebut other peoples arguments and show them up for what they are. Not difficult in this case given the standard of the "opposition". I don't and won't accept the line which is no more then a moral panic that "Nazis" are growing a massive rate, we are in capable of countering them and thus we must restrict a basic and foundational liberty and freedom upon which democratic societies are built.

Especially when such calls are most vocal coming from the other extreme which was always anti free speech and authoritarian and is using the "Nazi" threat as another way of implementing or advocating in favour of censorship.

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 12:38PM

20Cent wrote: »

The guy in the left is Matthew Heimbach a white supremacist leader currently giving talks in colleges. The guy on the right is the leader of the Republic of Florida group which claims the Florida shooter is a member.

We should give them a platform and allow them to recruit with no pushback?

I don't know what point you are trying to make. I don't think any of us arguing in favour of free speech are fond of white nationalists. You're trying to twist the debate, associating those of us who disagree with you with white nationalists. It's a very low tactic. What do you want to do with this group of white nationalists. Imprison them? Would that have stopped the shooting?

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:41PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't know what point you are trying to make. I don't think any of us arguing in favour of free speech are fond of white nationalists. You're trying to twist the debate, associating those of us who disagree with you with white nationalists. It's a very low tactic. What do you want to do with this group of white nationalists. Imprison them? Would that have stopped the shooting?

It would have stopped the shooting.
Not constitutional though.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2018 12:43PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You'll need more than one ambulance as the supporters of the neo-Nazi react to the protestors' violence. Violent protest at a lawful event is never the answer.

I am not suggesting violent protest is the answer - I am suggesting actual crippling violence.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:43PM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Amazing thing about free speech is that you can refute and rebut other peoples arguments and show them up for what they are. Not difficult in this case given the standard of the "opposition". I don't and won't accept the line which is no more then a moral panic that "Nazis" are growing a massive rate, we are in capable of countering them and thus we must restrict a basic and foundational liberty and freedom upon which democratic societies are built.

Especially when such calls are most vocal coming from the other extreme which was always anti free speech and authoritarian and is using the "Nazi" threat as another way of implementing or advocating in favour of censorship.

Where do you start a debate with someone who wants to kill you? Find a halfway point just a stab in the leg?

The debate about Nazism has been had, tens of millions of people died don't think we need to go over it again.

beans · 16-02-2018 12:46PM

20Cent wrote: »

White supremacist group Republic of Florida have claimed the Florida shooter as a member

Allegedly this is not true. Not to argue anything but worth adding for information.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:47PM

20Cent wrote: »

It would have stopped the shooting.
Not constitutional though.

What censorship would have stopped the shooting? And its unfortunate that free speech is constitutionally protected? Your wrong on both counts.

20Cent · 16-02-2018 12:48PM

beans wrote: »

Allegedly this is not true. Not to argue anything but worth adding for information.

From your post
Jordan Jereb literally told the media that it was true and that he was affiliated with a school shooter.

B0jangles · 16-02-2018 12:49PM

I think I agree with Karl Popper's conclusions on whether or not a truly tolerant society needs to be tolerant to all points of view, no matter how ugly.

It's easy to say that we should give a platform to every opinion, no matter how hateful but what would you do if those viewpoints spread and you yourself were the target of their hate?

Will you be defending their right to freedom of speech on your way to the gas chamber or gulag?

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 12:50PM

20Cent wrote: »

Where do you start a debate with someone who wants to kill you? Find a halfway point just a stab in the leg?

The debate about Nazism has been had, tens of millions of people died don't think we need to go over it again.

So you would be in favour of similar restrictions on communists? Like the ones who march on the streets during the Tory party conferences? I hope you're not inconsistent.

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 12:52PM

B0jangles wrote: »

I think I agree with Karl Popper's conclusions on whether or not a truly tolerant society needs to be tolerant to all points of view, no matter how ugly.

It's easy to say that we should give a platform to every opinion, no matter how hateful but what would you do if those viewpoints spread and you yourself were the target of their hate?

Will you be defending their right to freedom of speech on your way to the gas chamber or gulag?

Nonsense. The important question is *where do you draw the line*, and who is the arbiter?

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 12:56PM

20Cent wrote: »

Where do you start a debate with someone who wants to kill you? Find a halfway point just a stab in the leg?

The debate about Nazism has been had, tens of millions of people died don't think we need to go over it again.

You are concerned about the audience so you turn you debate and reasoning to them fairly logical. I am never going to agree with an ideologue be he a nazi or a communist. I don't focus my debate and reasoning against them but on observers and others, saying no these ideologies killed tens of millions and over a hundred million people respectively, here are the reasons you should not support them then list x y z.

Also you keep bring up the Nazi example but if we were being consistent we would have to also ban radical socialist/communists plus others like radical republicans in the Irish context ect.

I agree with none of the above but a I still allow them to speak I trust myself and people that vast majority of whom are not only educated but also have a third level (not that its need) education to come to and reach a reasonable conclusion. To think otherwise is to think you should be making decision for people, if you believe that then you are in many ways more a Communist or Nazi to use your preferred group then you think or realise.

B0jangles · 16-02-2018 12:58PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Nonsense. The important question is *where do you draw the line*, and who is the arbiter?

If someone is using a public platform to spread the idea that some human beings are inferior to others because of their gender, their skin colour, their religion, their sexuality, (or any of the other justifications they come up with), then they using that platform to spread hatred and intolerance.

If such people gain widespread support, then atrocities like the holocaust are their natural conclusion.

That you feel more comfortable defending the rights of such people to speak than the rights of those they hate to live safely tells me that you are pretty certain you'll never be their target of their hate.

That's a confidence that a lot of people don't get to experience.

Professor Moriarty · 16-02-2018 01:00PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not suggesting violent protest is the answer - I am suggesting actual crippling violence.

OK. So the logical conclusion to that suggestion is that you would have no problem with a gang of fascist far right skinheads invading a Socialist Workers Network gathering and inflicting "crippling violence'. Democracy is preferable.

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Comments