Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Havockk · 11-03-2018 08:56PM

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 · 11-03-2018 09:39PM

This post has been deleted.

Havockk · 11-03-2018 09:42PM

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 · 11-03-2018 11:12PM

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 · 11-03-2018 11:19PM

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 · 11-03-2018 11:33PM

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 · 11-03-2018 11:46PM

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 · 11-03-2018 11:57PM

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 · 12-03-2018 12:36AM

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 · 12-03-2018 01:14AM

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 · 12-03-2018 01:39AM

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 · 12-03-2018 09:43AM

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 · 12-03-2018 09:50AM

This post has been deleted.

markodaly · 12-03-2018 12:44PM

20Cent wrote: »

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

The alternative being what exactly?

20Cent · 12-03-2018 01:12PM

markodaly wrote: »

The alternative being what exactly?

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

markodaly · 12-03-2018 01:25PM

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 · 12-03-2018 01:33PM

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 · 12-03-2018 01:52PM

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 · 12-03-2018 02:46PM

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 · 12-03-2018 02:47PM

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?

end of the road · 12-03-2018 03:30PM

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think that no action should be taken against those people singing we hate blacks in the dorm room?

they were rightly suspended. they were rightly condemned and ridiculed. they were wrong, there was no excuse or justification for their actions toards that girl. but i struggle with the idea that they should be prosecuted for having a disgusting view.

The Legend Of Kira · 12-03-2018 03:32PM

20Cent wrote: »

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?

"" That jihadists should be also given a platform in universities? ""

In actual fact jihadists have spoken in colleges/universities in the past & have spoken at Trinity,, Anjem Choudary spoke at Trinity.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171

+ [font=arial, sans-serif]Abu Izzadeen also known as Omar Brooks also spoke at Trinity & said the following.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]"" [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]DUBLIN, Ireland[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, sans-serif](CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.""[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/[/font]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMtlzG2V_4

[font=arial, sans-serif]I don,t recall any left wing campaign to have the two jihadists no platformed back then how odd- but unlike you I don,t want them silenced or no platformed as Id rather know who the extremists are by letting them openly speak & shoot themselves in the foot.[/font]

Chris_Heilong · 12-03-2018 03:33PM

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.

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

20Cent · 12-03-2018 03:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

they were rightly suspended. they were rightly condemned and ridiculed. they were wrong, there was no excuse or justification for their actions toards that girl. but i struggle with the idea that they should be prosecuted for having a disgusting view.

They have been arrested. Bit more than having a disgusting view they were deliberately intimidating and scaring someone.
Their freedom of speech clashed with someone elses freedom not to be intimidated in their own home.

The Legend Of Kira · 12-03-2018 03:45PM

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

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.

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

"" it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas ""

For the moment there is no great firewall in Europe blocking both Internal & external websites,, for example I can look up Cnn/ Russia today/ Press tv & many other external news websites to get news from a different perspective & form my own opinions on things- whereas in China many websites are blocked + information about what happened in 1989 in reference to Tiananmen square is highly censored online- doesn,t sound free to me .

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china

markodaly · 12-03-2018 04:28PM

20Cent wrote: »

I'm against Nazi's being given platforms by universities.

Yes, we know. That is your opinion but as has been detailed to you numerous times now in painstakingly detail, public Universities have a constitutional obligation to give Nazi's a platform.

In essence what you are for is the curtailment of the 1st amendment, which has given more power and energy to things like the civil rights movement or homosexual liberation than anything else.

I see a group like that giving a talk as the same as the people singing we hate blacks outside a dorm room.

Clearly nuance is lost on you.

The person the hatred was aimed at has a human right not to have to live in fear just because of their skin colour.

There are plenty of laws already on the statue books that protect people from thugs. We do not need to curtail freedom of speech in order to protect people.

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.

Just because you cannot knowingly defame someone in public, without the risk of being sued does not mean then we should scuttle the biggest provision that protects human rights, that is free speech and the ability to air political views that may be unpalatable to some

Just because you cannot shout fire in a theatre without repercussions does not mean then we have a right not to be offended, because if tis the latter you are basically living in a society based upon tyranny

The whole idea that because Nazi's have freedom of speech, and that Nazi's are bad, then we should also get rid freedom of speech.

markodaly · 12-03-2018 04:35PM

20Cent wrote: »

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?

As been noted, Jihadists have been given this platform. Is it not ironic of you that Jihadists are quite open to state that they do not want Freedom of Speech, like yourself?

http://trinitynews.ie/we-dont-share-your-ideas-for-freedom-of-speech/

I took the opportunity to raise the matter of free speech, picking up where we had left off in our last conversation, as I was curious to see how he perceived the west’s reaction to this form of violent censorship. However, if there were any double standard, it cut very little ice as he justified the actions of the gunmen, stating, “as Muslims, we live our lives by the law of God, not the law of man. In Islam, punishment for insulting the prophet of god is death. This cannot be changed.”

“We don’t share your ideas for freedom of speech, i.e. the freedom to insult whoever you like”, he continued. “There is no concept of one law for us and another for you. No, it is the same law for everyone.”

I for one would rather he aired those views so a light could be shone on this tyrannical Islamofascist point of view.

markodaly · 12-03-2018 04:40PM

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

It is freer than Europe, so long as you don't have an opinion about politics or criticise the ruling Communist Party.....

Yeap, some freedom alright.

I have been to China too and you know very quick that the average citizen has no basic human rights, like we understand in the West.

It does not matter on iota that Xi Jinping may be the second incarnation of Buddha or Jesus, he is still a man, who will pass away and someone else, perhaps with a more tyrannical despotic nature will assume the role, where there lies little avenue to remove them.

I cannot believe someone is actually defending what China has done.

The Legend Of Kira · 12-03-2018 04:41PM

20Cent wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

The alternative being what exactly?

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

Given that you are the one who mentioned " human rights " Id be interested to know if you agree that the following are human rights that should be upheld by law ?

Freedom of thought/opinion ?

Freedom to express an opinion ?

Freedom of expression/freedom of speech ?

Freedom of conscience ?

Freedom of association ?

Freedom of assembly ?

Freedom to express an unpopular opinion ?

Freedom to receive information ?

Freedom to organise ?

Freedom to criticise Religion ?

Freedom to criticise other cultures/cultural practices ?

If you answer & not dodge what I asked you- Id be interested in your answers as Im sure others might be too .

Chris_Heilong · 12-03-2018 04:43PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas ""

For the moment there is no great firewall in Europe blocking both Internal & external websites,, for example I can look up Cnn/ Russia today/ Press tv & many other external news websites to get news from a different perspective & form my own opinions on things- whereas in China many websites are blocked + information about what happened in 1989 in reference in Tiananmen square is highly censored online- doesn,t sound free to me .

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china

lol, good old Tiananmen again and the internet, you will see I said "free...in lots of areas" I did not say over all.
China are trying to be somewhat self sufficient when it come to technology and the internet and the average Chinese person has little interest in politics and like the USA they are so big the outside world not really on their minds.
Here is a video on the subject:

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Comments