Bigot, sectarian site still running and nothing is being done

aidan_walsh wrote: »

You can't legislate against hurting people's feelings.

Try as they might.

-Funk

Dudess wrote:

But as for the "people are entitled to their opinion"/free speech argument: are people who believe, for example, that all children with cerebral palsy should be gassed, entitled to spread that view?

Sure. As long as it's on their site, and especially if they invite debate/arguement - hell, yeah!


The Internet remains a Pull media, for now. You choose what you want to see. If you click on something you don't like, you can click elsewhere.

Dudess wrote: »

There is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act though. I, for one, am glad. But that's just my opinion (ironically )

As it's hosted in the USA, free speech pretty much rules.

If boards was hosted the same way then we'd all be free to say what we wanted about - Micks Car Dealership - for example.
Irish or UK law has no juristiction.

Kold wrote: »

I believe in the right to free speech. It bothers me that people have sectarian beliefs, it also bothers me that people buy Beyoncé's music.

Yes! Banning Beyoncé ftw. Along with Westlife and any other manufactured shyte...:D

It ain't gonna happen though, is it? Let the morons have their say and then come on to boards and complain about it.:rolleyes:

Better on the internet than anywhere else.

I would in general be a strong proponent of free speech. History has shown us often enough how dangerous it is for societies when that right is abrogated.

On the other hand, I do believe there should be some limits around areas like incitement to hatred, as mentioned. I think there is a point where the right to free speech is superceded by other even more important rights ... the right to go about one's daily life without being harassed by lunatic fringe bigots under the banner of "free speech", for example. Or to take an even clearer example (if an extreme one, admittedly), I doubt if many people would defend a site promoting and facilitating active paedophilia on the grounds of free speech ... most of us, I think, would contend that the rights of children to safety and protection outweigh the right to free speech in that scenario.

Where exactly the line is drawn is always difficult to define, however, and I certainly wouldn't claim any special insight on that subject. It's somewhere around where normal people in a normal society say "that's not on!" though ... rather than at a point which suits a particular political party, or a regime / government with something to hide / suppress.

I'm not sure that the argument of where the line is drawn is that relevant to the present thread, though. I find sites like Stormfront etc. extremely distasteful. I'm never that sure that suppressing them is the right or effective answer, however. Suppression makes martyrs. Martyrs become even more convinced that they are right, and even more determined and passionate about their message.

I'm more inclined to leave them in the open, where they can be seen, monitored and challenged, rather than driving them underground.

Point and laugh, people, point and laugh.

Ridicule is a far more effective weapon than suppression any day.

randylonghorn wrote: »

I would in general be a strong proponent of free speech. History has shown us often enough how dangerous it is for societies when that right is abrogated.

On the other hand, I do believe there should be some limits around areas like incitement to hatred, as mentioned. I think there is a point where the right to free speech is superceded by other even more important rights ... the right to go about one's daily life without being harassed by lunatic fringe bigots under the banner of "free speech", for example. Or to take an even clearer example (if an extreme one, admittedly), I doubt if many people would defend a site promoting and facilitating active paedophilia on the grounds of free speech ... most of us, I think, would contend that the rights of children to safety and protection outweigh the right to free speech in that scenario..

I take it you're not a scientologist then.

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'm more inclined to leave them in the open, where they can be seen, monitored and challenged, rather than driving them underground.

Point and laugh, people, point and laugh.

Ridicule is a far more effective weapon than suppression any day.

Sorry, after reading that, I can't get the word 'squeak' out of my head.:)

Anyone know whatever happened to squeak? Buried alive?