You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate Speech
September 20 2019 9.00am

Hate Speech

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 01 Sep 19 3.42pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by dannyboy1978

Instead of shutting down debate on a political forum perhaps you would like to explain your point of view. That would be much better than be obnoxious

He or she or it never does.
Looks at HOL and w a n k s as its typing.
Must have a messy keyboard.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 01 Sep 19 4.16pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by DanH

With all due respect, the OP is talking a load of over exaggerated old b*llocks.

I suppose that seen from the point of view of a brainwashed moron, it would seem that way.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Sep 19 4.23pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Dirty Harry is in trouble then.https://youtu.be/RnRkCemeV7k

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 4.56pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Hate speech definition in the OED, which is similar to all the others I can find:-

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

There is nothing in there that expresses any kind pf political opinion.

Therefore it is open to anyone, or any group, that feels that any law covering this area has been broken, to bring an action in Court.

So if a white, male, christian, heterosexual, pro UK and USA capitalist (for instance) felt offended by something someone has said then they have the same opportunity to bring charges as anyone else.

That they don't and that all the cases brought seem to be against the hatred from the right is informative. Not by the way about our impartial judiciary but on where the hate really exists.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 01 Sep 19 5.04pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Freedom of speech should be the cornerstone of any democracy providing it does not advocate violence.

That does not mean that the MSM or even social media have to broadcast every idiot's opinion but if someone wants to stand on a soapbox and rail against whatever they should have that right. The rest of us don't have to listen.

Where you draw the line is always a bone of contention but right now I think it has gone to far. I look forward to a future government bringing a bill of rights and the arguments about how far we allow freedom of speech.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 01 Sep 19 5.11pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Hate speech definition in the OED, which is similar to all the others I can find:-

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

There is nothing in there that expresses any kind pf political opinion.

Therefore it is open to anyone, or any group, that feels that any law covering this area has been broken, to bring an action in Court.

So if a white, male, christian, heterosexual, pro UK and USA capitalist (for instance) felt offended by something someone has said then they have the same opportunity to bring charges as anyone else.

That they don't and that all the cases brought seem to be against the hatred from the right is informative. Not by the way about our impartial judiciary but on where the hate really exists.

What about being fat, having a big nose or ears.
That doesnt hurt then if someone abuses you about it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 01 Sep 19 5.24pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

There is only speech.

'Hate Speech' is an invention and it's always whatever the left say it is.

It's only purpose is to justify censorship.....and it's frequent use is against anything that challenges the left's ideas.

If their ideas weren't defeated in the west within the marketplace of ideas the 'hate speech' would never have gained prominence.


Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Sep 2019 5.29pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dannyboy1978's Profile dannyboy1978 Flag 01 Sep 19 5.25pm Send a Private Message to dannyboy1978 Add dannyboy1978 as a friend

So If i said hypothetically

1. Hate all religion
2. I have Islam.
3. I hate Christianity

Which one would people find more offensive

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 01 Sep 19 5.32pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Freedom of speech should be the cornerstone of any democracy providing it does not advocate violence.

That does not mean that the MSM or even social media have to broadcast every idiot's opinion but if someone wants to stand on a soapbox and rail against whatever they should have that right. The rest of us don't have to listen.

Where you draw the line is always a bone of contention but right now I think it has gone to far. I look forward to a future government bringing a bill of rights and the arguments about how far we allow freedom of speech.

Sounds about right to me. People should be able to say whatever they want without legal consequence, unless it's a serious threat of violence or designed to cause mass panic.. like a bomb threat at an airport for example. It's a self policing system. If people act like pr!cks, they are typically recognised as such by others. I don't agree with any government involvement in that feedback loop.

Freedom of speech and expression should be non negotiable. We see from various governments left and right world over that they aren't, and if we find ourselves clapping like seals over any infringement upon others personal freedoms just because we disagree with them or their politics ultimately we only succeed in making a rod for our own backs.

Governments seek control over populations any way they can get it. They aren't 'working for us', and will routinely pit people against one another if it succeeds in that aim.

Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 5.56pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 5.58pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

What about being fat, having a big nose or ears.
That doesnt hurt then if someone abuses you about it.

Of course it might. I don't get your point, if indeed there is one!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Sep 19 6.06pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by dollardays

Sounds about right to me. People should be able to say whatever they want without legal consequence, unless it's a serious threat of violence or designed to cause mass panic.. like a bomb threat at an airport for example. It's a self policing system. If people act like pr!cks, they are typically recognised as such by others. I don't agree with any government involvement in that feedback loop.

Freedom of speech and expression should be non negotiable. We see from various governments left and right world over that they aren't, and if we find ourselves clapping like seals over any infringement upon others personal freedoms just because we disagree with them or their politics ultimately we only succeed in making a rod for our own backs.

Governments seek control over populations any way they can get it. They aren't 'working for us', and will routinely pit people against one another if it succeeds in that aim.

Edited by dollardays (01 Sep 2019 5.56pm)

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

So you prefer that people have the freedom to abuse or threaten people because of their prejudices against others?

Not just express rational, reasoned arguments! Abuse or threaten! It is not be sufficient for someone to simply feel offended. It is necessary to prove abuse or threats.

Is that really what we want in our society?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 01 Sep 19 6.14pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

No one has ever been concerned with protecting inoffensive speech.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate Speech