Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

The Legend Of Kira · 21-02-2018 04:27PM

What one regards as so called hate speech,, others will regard as legitimate criticism or legitimate form of protest.

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.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

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.)

Or another example from France.

"" , former French cinema star Brigitte Bardot is now an avid animal rights activist who has passionately denounced the Islamic practice of ritual slaughter without prior stunning ""

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/18/french-hate-speech-laws-are-less-simplistic-than-you-think/?utm_term=.5b62647ba33f

Brigitte & others will feel this was legitimate criticism ,, but once again the courts felt differently .

Is this the kinda society some people on here actually want where people will be brought to court for urging boycotts or publicly criticising ritual slaughter of animals ?

Or to be hypothetical lets say we if had laws against so called hate speech in Ireland,, take for example anti Scientology protests that were held in Dublin a few months ago.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-scientology-centre-dublin-firhouse-13763163

The protesters feel they re engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but what if we had laws against so called hate speech & what if members of Scientology felt these protests were a form of hate speech against them & brought the protesters to court & the people engaging in the protests were fined ? I have to ask would 20cent & others be actually ok with it or would you view it was a violation of free speech ? cause to quote a saying " be careful what you wish for " .

Permabear · 21-02-2018 04:35PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 21-02-2018 04:44PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What one regards as so called hate speech,, others will regard as legitimate criticism or legitimate form of protest.

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.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

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.)

Or another example from France.

"" , former French cinema star Brigitte Bardot is now an avid animal rights activist who has passionately denounced the Islamic practice of ritual slaughter without prior stunning ""

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/18/french-hate-speech-laws-are-less-simplistic-than-you-think/?utm_term=.5b62647ba33f

Brigitte & others will feel this was legitimate criticism ,, but once again the courts felt differently .

Is this the kinda society some people on here actually want where people will be brought to court for urging boycotts or publicly criticising ritual slaughter of animals ?

Or to be hypothetical lets say we if had laws against so called hate speech in Ireland,, take for example anti Scientology protests that were held in Dublin a few months ago.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/church-scientology-centre-dublin-firhouse-13763163

The protesters feel they re engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but what if we had laws against so called hate speech & what if members of Scientology felt these protests were a form of hate speech against them & brought the protesters to court & the people engaging in the protests were fined ? I have to ask would 20cent & others be actually ok with it or would you view it was a violation of free speech ? cause to quote a saying " be careful what you wish for " .

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

20Cent · 21-02-2018 05:06PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The second one is what you consider illegal because it is a call to kill. I'm saying that "the Jews will not replace us, we need a white only ethnostate" is the same thing just not using the word kill.

Permabear · 21-02-2018 05:53PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 21-02-2018 05:57PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll kill you next week is ok then?

Havockk · 21-02-2018 06:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nice, so if us ornery old Marxists insert a delay in relation to the commencement of violence we should be fine, in your book so to speak?

Honestly, it's a deal I'm not fussed about but in the interests of getting to the violence eventually I think we can strike a bargain.

Permabear · 21-02-2018 06:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Havockk · 21-02-2018 06:25PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not entering this argument, just pointing in a legitimate fashion the absurdity of your point of view there.

Besides, courts used to say I could keep a slave, or oppress women.

20Cent · 21-02-2018 06:35PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't see how there could be a white only state without any violence. Marxism has lost all meaning lately, something to do with transexuals and bathrooms.

20Cent · 21-02-2018 06:37PM

Havockk wrote: »

I'm not entering this argument, just pointing in a legitimate fashion the absurdity of your point of view there.

Besides, courts used to say I could keep a slave, or oppress women.

I'm going to kill you right now.
I'm going to kill you sometime in the not immediate future.
I think you shouldn't exist.

All similar threats imo.
A Jewish person hearing the above from a Nazi would be equally put in fear by each statement.

ancapailldorcha · 21-02-2018 06:42PM

20Cent wrote: »

I'll kill you next week is ok then?

Enough of the facetious remarks please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

20Cent · 21-02-2018 07:39PM

I think the Germans have the right attitude to Nazi's which is zero tolerance. No displays of the swastika or Nazi salutes.

The anti hate laws are good also.

Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Straight forward enough.

The Legend Of Kira · 21-02-2018 10:39PM

20Cent wrote: »

I think the Germans have the right attitude to Nazi's which is zero tolerance. No displays of the swastika or Nazi salutes.

The anti hate laws are good also.

Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Straight forward enough.

"" Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion,""

If you have such laws designed to stifle criticise of religion you never know where it may lead if someone is brought to court over something they said publicly,, as I referred to examples from France in a recent previous post of mine.

Lets say laws against so called hate speech were in Ireland,, Brid Smith from people before profit could of been a target of such laws over something she said publicly last year.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]It is time to put the Catholic Church "in the dustbin, where it belongs ( Brid Smith ) " .[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/christianity-is-considered-fair-game-for-attack-so-why-is-criticism-of-muslims-always-islamophobic-35808583.html[/font]

To some people that may be a fair comment,, however to some people who are attend church on a weekly basis that could be seen as " hate speech " in some eyes- if we had similar laws as Germany someone could of made a complaint that she engaged in " hate speech " last year, but as we don,t have such laws that didn,t happen.

Back in noughties the Blair government in the UK tried to bring in a new law on religious hatred which suffered a defeat in Westminster.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/feb/01/religion.immigrationpolicy

But before it was defeated [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Rowan Atkinson was quoted as saying this publicly to which I fully concur & agree with him.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478381/Atkinson-defends-right-to-offend.html[/font]

20Cent · 21-02-2018 11:15PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Lets say laws against so called hate speech were in Ireland,, Brid Smith from people before profit could of been a target of such laws over something she said publicly last year.

"" [font=Georgia, serif]It is time to put the Catholic Church "in the dustbin, where it belongs ( Brid Smith ) " .[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/christianity-is-considered-fair-game-for-attack-so-why-is-criticism-of-muslims-always-islamophobic-35808583.html[/font]

To some people that may be a fair comment,, however to some people who are attend church on a weekly basis that could be seen as " hate speech " in some eyes- if we had similar laws as Germany someone could of made a complaint that she engaged in " hate speech " last year, but as we don,t have such laws that didn,t happen.

Ireland has an incitement to hatred act.
Brid Smith has not been arrested yet as far as I know. It is possible to word such things in a sensible way.

Brian? · 22-02-2018 08:04AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hold up there. Not all Marxists want to use violence. I’m a little surprised no one has challenged you on that. Revolution doesn’t necessarily mean a violent revolution.

As for the main point. I’m 100% in agreement with you. Freedom to express ideas should be uninhibited in a free society.

This doesn’t mean freedom to defame or libel. This doesn’t mean the freedom to express you ideas without protest or challenge. I don’t think a term as subjective as “hate speech” should be used to punish those who we don’t agree with.

Permabear · 22-02-2018 10:13AM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 22-02-2018 12:03PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Nazis themselves would have enjoyed a nice cup of coffee - that doesn't mean coffee must be stamped out.

Red_Wake · 22-02-2018 12:09PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Nazis themselves would have enjoyed a nice cup of coffee - that doesn't mean coffee must be stamped out.[/quote]
Did they use coffee as a means of subjugating others though?

Zubeneschamali · 22-02-2018 12:11PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Did they use coffee as a means of subjugating others though?

The Nazis used guns and uniforms to subjugate others, so we should ban guns and uniforms.

The Legend Of Kira · 22-02-2018 12:20PM

20Cent on about nazi displays banned in Germany,, Id like to know his/her thoughts on a law that was passed in Poland in 2009 equating communist symbols with nazi symbols & an equal ban on communist symbols.

https://www.rt.com/politics/poland-bans-communist-symbols/

If you favour banning one,, as you referenced Germany- then surely you would agree with this Polish law equally banning communist symbols too ?

Brian? · 22-02-2018 02:04PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a recipe for getting rebuked for dragging the thread off topic again. Did Marx envision a violent revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as the only method of social and economic revolution? I really don't think he did.

I will admit that the number of Pacifist Marxists is defintely in the minority.

Agreed entirely.

Inevitably, the definition of "hate speech" expands to incorporate virtually anything that might offend. And this is no fanciful notion: British politician Paul Weston was arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after he read out a passage on Islam from a book by Winston Churchill.

The implications of the government-controlled speech desired by 20Cent are truly Orwellian.

Do you have to bring Orwell into it? Orwell was actually a Socialist of the violent persuasion

. But yes, goverment control of speech is inherently authoritarian.

Brian? · 22-02-2018 02:06PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

20Cent on about nazi displays banned in Germany,, Id like to know his/her thoughts on a law that was passed in Poland in 2009 equating communist symbols with nazi symbols & an equal ban on communist symbols.

https://www.rt.com/politics/poland-bans-communist-symbols/

If you favour banning one,, as you referenced Germany- then surely you would agree with this Polish law equally banning communist symbols too ?

Seriously. Is there any need for this whataboutery? It undermines any serious point you have to make. A point I actually agree with.

Permabear · 22-02-2018 02:57PM

This post has been deleted.

Brian? · 22-02-2018 03:04PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don’t argue that the majority of Marxists advocate violent revolution. My point was that Marxism isn’t a violent philosophy in itself, Marxists are a broad church. Some are pacifists, some are not.

That's my essential point. Handing control of speech to the state is an inherently authoritarian position -- and one that has never worked out especially well historically, so it's surprising to see the support for it on this thread.

How does it feel to be on the same side for once?

Permabear · 22-02-2018 03:18PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 22-02-2018 04:12PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ireland has had incitement to hatred laws since 1989. Have we descented into an Orwelian hellhole yet? People can discuss and critique religion no problem. Same with most of Europe and Canade.

The US on the other hand are discussing if teachers should be armed and have neo nazi groups giving talks in colleges.

Havockk · 22-02-2018 04:21PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps it's time we had a conversation about neo-liberal economic violence and when it is morally acceptable for the exploited class to resist.

Permabear · 23-02-2018 10:27AM

This post has been deleted.

Chris_Heilong · 23-02-2018 04:00PM

20Cent wrote: »

Ireland has had incitement to hatred laws since 1989. Have we descented into an Orwelian hellhole yet? People can discuss and critique religion no problem. Same with most of Europe and Canade.

The US on the other hand are discussing if teachers should be armed and have neo nazi groups giving talks in colleges.

Really? I dont hear a lot of critique or discussion on Islam on the news. Which according to some people in the world (Jews and Homosexuals) are just as bad as the Nazis.

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Comments