brexit, Coronavirus and the eu

[WILF 44,191]

1 minute ago, kanny said:

So you don't support free speech then.

Dont get it twisted I am playing devil's advocate a little here.  I agree we have crossed a line at present with curbing our free speech rights but I can also see that absolute free speech also has its problems .

I've spent hours listening to debates on this subject and what it usually boils down to is  some white guy wants the the right to call a black guy  nigger , and not get a smack up the lips for it .

I'm all for free speech as a right to criticise but not to abuse is where I personally stand on the subject. 

No, I hear you mate and it’s an interesting conversation.

The point you make about nigger is interesting because as it stands I can’t say it about a black man but a black man can say it about a black man ???......not that I want to go round shouting nigger in black men’s  faces these days, them days are way back in the mist of time but it clearly demonstrates the danger of regulating speech.....because now you have created a 2 tier society, IN LAW and one of us is going to sit there getting more and more wound up about it.

Not heathy for anyone I’m sure you would agree? 
 

Speech is the safety valve of society (imho).......

I also agree that it shouldn’t be abused.....BUT......the danger is then who decides what is abuse ?........you?.....me?......a right or left wing nut job ?

Who makes that definition ? 

[kanny 19,323]

16 minutes ago, WILF said:

No, I hear you mate and it’s an interesting conversation.

The point you make about nigger is interesting because as it stands I can’t say it about a black man but a black man can say it about a black man ???......not that I want to go round shouting nigger in black men’s  faces these days, them days are way back in the mist of time but it clearly demonstrates the danger of regulating speech.....because now you have created a 2 tier society, IN LAW and one of us is going to sit there getting more and more wound up about it.

Not heathy for anyone I’m sure you would agree? 
 

Speech is the safety valve of society (imho).......

I also agree that it shouldn’t be abused.....BUT......the danger is then who decides what is abuse ?........you?.....me?......a right or left wing nut job ?

Who makes that definition ? 

Regarding the  nigger thing I  myself have come to the conclusion that the word should be either be seen as  offensive across the board  or not offensive at all. I think with its over use within the black community and music  the word is starting to  loose its power it's not uncommon now to see  white kids giving it the yo my niggaz with no retribution. This open use of words to de-weponise them is another argument I often see but I personally think that some words should carry weight or they have no real meaning. 

Like you say it's a interesting topic and very nuanced as its based on context. 

[kanny 19,323]

33 minutes ago, WILF said:

I also agree that it shouldn’t be abused.....BUT......the danger is then who decides what is abuse ?........you?.....me?......a right or left wing nut job ?

Who makes that definition ? 

This is the real question I agree,  I'd like to say society as whole but looking  at society today I think would find myself on losing side  lol 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 hours ago, WILF said:

Mate, I totally agree with all that.....what I really meant was (in a long winded and round about way) that what does anyone expect ?..........when crazy is the new normal then you will get equally as crazy pushing in the opposite direction.

Its not right and it certainly isn’t ideal but what do we expect.

Fair.

My own naivety would expect someone that actually wants to improve the lives of his fellow countrymen. My own reality wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. I suppose I'm looking at this wondering why someone would want to repeat those mistakes then it dawns on me that a lot of people don't think that it was a mistake.

1 hour ago, kanny said:

Then you have to accept that it's ok for someone to say the worst of things to your kids and not have a the right to act on it  your stance is decreasing your rights not increasing them . 

Why wouldn't you have the right to act on it?

48 minutes ago, kanny said:

I agree we have crossed a line at present with curbing our free speech rights but I can also see that absolute free speech also has its problems .

The freedom of speech should be absolute. The government roll should be to protect the right not to promote any view other than that of the individual. Anyone here can speak as they please. Anyone else can speak against that. It may cause problems but not allowing it is also causing problems.

45 minutes ago, WILF said:

because now you have created a 2 tier society,

Ironically in the name of equality.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

46 minutes ago, WILF said:

I also agree that it shouldn’t be abused.....BUT......the danger is then who decides what is abuse ?........you?.....me?......a right or left wing nut job ?

Who makes that definition ? 

Only the extreme examples will use the extremes. The individual gets to decide what the abuse level is, and act accordingly, but I'm firmly in the belief that limitations on speech shouldn't exist. Speak your piece. You'll receive your own peer review!

 

[kanny 19,323]

5 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Why wouldn't you have the right to act on it?

Because you would be on the wrong side of the law it's not a right if it has consequences for using it

8 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

The freedom of speech should be absolute. The government roll should be to protect the right not to promote any view other than that of the individual. Anyone here can speak as they please. Anyone else can speak against that. It may cause problems but not allowing it is also causing problems.

I personally don't believe that anyone has the right to abuse , criticise  yes abuse no its all about the context 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Just now, kanny said:

Because you would be on the wrong side of the law it's not a right if it has consequences for using it

Wouldn't that depend on your action? If someone came screaming obscenities of any kind, at my kids when they were younger they'd be paid in kind. Freedom of speech should be absolute but that doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.

5 minutes ago, kanny said:

I personally don't believe that anyone has the right to abuse , criticise  yes abuse no its all about the context 

Fair. Of course the next step is define where the line between abuse and criticism is. Easier to just make the individual responsible for their own speech.

[Greyman 25,157]

1 hour ago, kanny said:

Then you have to accept that it's ok for someone to say the worst of things to your kids and not have a the right to act on it  your stance is decreasing your rights not increasing them . 

If someone thinks it’s right to say what they like to a kid they must also be ok when a responsible adult smacks them straight in the mouth, you seem to be saying it’s ok to abuse people, which is a different issue, being abusive is not the same as owning what you say, there are enough laws to cover abusive behaviour that have no bearing on freedom of speech 

[kanny 19,323]

3 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Wouldn't that depend on your action? If someone came screaming obscenities of any kind, at my kids when they were younger they'd be paid in kind. Freedom of speech should be absolute but that doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.

Sure you could scream back at them if you're present that is  let's put it another way  if someone  said the most hurtful things your kids trumatising them  and it was caught on CCTV but you had no way of finding them would you accept it or would you want the police  involved to have a word? 

13 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Fair. Of course the next step is define where the line between abuse and criticism is. Easier to just make the individual responsible for their own speech

I don't think there is any blurring of lines it's clear  cut isn't it? 

I can criticise my wife for how she made the cake and give my reasons for why I think she was in the wrong in the process of  making the cake. 

I cant abuse  her by belittling and  her calling her derogatory names because she didn't do it right . 

 

[kanny 19,323]

28 minutes ago, Greyman said:

If someone thinks it’s right to say what they like to a kid they must also be ok when a responsible adult smacks them straight in the mouth, you seem to be saying it’s ok to abuse people, which is a different issue, being abusive is not the same as owning what you say, there are enough laws to cover abusive behaviour that have no bearing on freedom of speech 

Then you don't agree with absolute free speech  it has consequences that's exactly what the hypothetical I gave was designed to uncover...good

[ChrisJones 7,973]

32 minutes ago, kanny said:

Sure you could scream back at them if you're present that is  let's put it another way  if someone  said the most hurtful things your kids trumatising them  and it was caught on CCTV but you had no way of finding them would you accept it or would you want the police  involved to have a word?

I always reserved screaming for rugby matches to be honest.

In the scenario you give I honestly don't know how to answer it. I've never encountered that situation so it's hard to answer. When it happened to me I shrugged it off. Being verbally assaulted never really bothered me that much. Sure I'd have preferred not have been there but I've encountered worse on here! That might sound like I'm trying to sidestep the question but I'd only want legal recourse if my kids were physically assaulted. They've grown up in a small town and now they're older teenagers. My youngest is 17. Middle 18. My eldest lives in his own apartment at 19. They've had grief at school for not being religious and being outsiders but they've formed friendships with others and have adapted well.

32 minutes ago, kanny said:

I don't think there is any blurring of lines it's clear  cut isn't it? 

I can criticise my wife for how she made the cake and give my reasons for why I think she was in the wrong in the process of  making the cake. 

I cant abuse  her by belittling and  her calling her derogatory names because she didn't do it right . 

I'm not sure, mate. You're free to do all of the above and simultaneously free to accept the consequences of your actions. However you're a reasonable man and that simply because you have that right you don't have to exercise it. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, or even will. That's how reasonable people behave.

Granted society has shown that we have a lot of unreasonable people but that doesn't mean they're free from the consequences, or even should be. The consequence doesn't have to be violence but if I were to criticize my wife's cooking. Belittle or abuse her in anyway the consequences would be that she would leave.

Look at UKIP in the last round of European elections. Labour at the general. Donnie in 2016. Donnie's party in 2018. All of them used their freedom of speech and were rewarded, or reprimanded, respectively. Society still works reasonably at the moment.

Creating laws that silence or hinder parts of society create resentment. It's given traction to ideas that are not allowed to be discussed and created a swath of knock on effects that could create unrest under the broad banner of abuse. Allowing the free exchange of ideas and discussion of them, rightly or wrongly, creates a release valve as @WILF mentioned and I agree. That freedom brings them into the open for peer review and I believe that's a good thing as it can be openly criticized on a level playing field.

Edited April 2, 2020 by ChrisJones
Typo

[kanny 19,323]

16 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

I always reserved screaming for rugby matches to be honest.

In the scenario you give I honestly don't know how to answer it. I've never encountered that situation so it's hard to answer. When it happened to me I shrugged it off. Being verbally assaulted never really bothered me that much. Sure I'd have preferred not have been there but I've encountered worse on here! That might sound like I'm trying to sidestep the question but I'd only want legal recourse if my kids were physically assaulted. They've grown up in a small town and now they're older teenagers. My youngest is 17. Middle 18. My eldest lives in his own apartment at 19. They've had grief at school for not being religious and being outsiders but they've formed friendships with others and have adapted well.

I'm not sure, mate. You're free to do all of the above and simultaneously free to accept the consequences of your actions. However you're a reasonable man and you that simply because you have that right you don't have to exercise it. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, or even will. That's how reasonable people behave.

Granted society has shown that we have a lot of unreasonable people but that doesn't mean they're free from the consequences, or even should be. The consequence doesn't have to be violence but if I were to criticize my wife's cooking. Belittle or abuse her in anyway the consequences would be that she would leave.

Look at UKIP in the last round of European elections. Labour at the general. Donnie in 2016. Donnie's party in 2018. All of them used their freedom of speech and were rewarded, or reprimanded, respectively. Society still works reasonably at the moment.

Creating laws that silence or hinder parts of society create resentment. It's given traction to ideas that are not allowed to be discussed and created a swath of knock on effects that could create unrest under the broad banner of abuse. Allowing the free exchange of ideas and discussion of them, rightly or wrongly, creates a release valve as @WILF mentioned and I agree. That freedom brings them into the open for peer review and I believe that's a good thing as it can be openly criticized on a level playing field.

Maybe I have strolled a little to far down the hypotheticals road lol but hypotheticals do have their uses for exposing faults and inconsistencies as long as they are real world hypotheticals I'm happy to have a play with them.  

I guess I'm trying to defend the weaker person also ,not everyone has the minerals to give it back regardless of rights and it becomes a  might makes right situation.

It's a very interesting complex topic for sure.

Edit to add regarding might makes right  no way am I criticising the wifes cooking  are you mad!

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Just now, kanny said:

Maybe I have strolled a little to far down the hypothetical road lol but hypothetical do have their uses for exposing faults and inconsistencies as long as they are real world hypothetical I'm happy to have a play with them.  

I guess I'm trying to defend the weaker person also ,not everyone has the minerals to give it back regardless of rights and it becomes a  might makes right situation.

It's a very interesting complex topic for sure.

Nothing wrong with using the hypothetical situation, in any situation, but having no experience with your chosen scenario, in this case, I honestly have a hard time answering the question and it may seem like I'm either avoiding or ducking the issue. I'm not just don't know how to give the answer you're looking for.

When I used to be a mod on this forum, many electoral cycles ago, I used to receive regular abuse via PM. Even had a few death threats because people didn't like what I did. They simply didn't believe that I supported their free speech. The reality was that this is a private forum, on a private server, and some of that speech was against the terms of service on said server. What they saw as censorship was actually an attempt to remove their liability for libel.

That was a consequence.

While I disagreed with what they said I supported their right to say so but was bound by the TOS of the server hosting their opinions. Rightly or wrongly I followed what I believed was the correct course of action and in a minority of cases was vilified for it.

Now THL has always stradled the line from what British society would deem acceptable in PC culture but it still endures which shows the need for said release valve but I'm also aware that people externally monitor these forums and some have had their collars felt for contravening the laws that have been put in place while this forum has existed.

It is interesting to note that many outspoken posters, on certain issues, no longer post on here and have logged in at some point to censor their own material. I won't name names but I've actually checked up and seen it for myself. I honestly wonder whether they had a sudden change of heart or whether that material has had them visited for contravening other laws that have been put in place since the beginning. I won't know as they don't post anymore but they're conspicuously absent. Whether that is indeed a consequence to their free speech I won't know unless it's either confirmed or denied but either way their posts aren't visible any more.

[WILF 44,191]

1 hour ago, kanny said:

its all about the context 

That legal precedent has already been set in the UK in the case of the jock comedian the other year and the ruling is that there is no such thing as context in the “crime” of offensive speech !!

So I’m afraid mate, it really has to be all or nothing at all 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

9 minutes ago, WILF said:

That legal precedent has already been set in the UK in the case of the jock comedian the other year and the ruling is that there is no such thing as context in the “crime” of offensive speech !!

So I’m afraid mate, it really has to be all or nothing at all 

Comedian wouldn't be the word I'd use but the whole legal fiasco made for a grim precedent indeed. A fine and a suspended sentence wasn't enough for some advocates for hate speech laws and I read shortly after that they were looking into strengthening sentences for those alleged crimes.

Again while I disagree with what he did. I equally disagree with the knee-jerk reaction to it. The action was draconian and simply feeds the beast that always lurks in a society with two-tier equality.