• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Free Speech and Hate Speech

Sauron97

TS Member
Free speech has been an interesting topic of late, so I thought I'd share some pretty interesting and controversial stuff...
1)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...calais-detain-uk-ban-enter-visa-a8254116.html
A Canadian national who works as a right wing journalist (known for being a harsh critic of both Islam and socialism) banned from the UK after handing out leaflets saying "Allah is gay" as a social experiment, with her motive being the Vice magazine claiming that Jesus might of been gay and that being more accepted. She and her friends were detained in Calais before the Home office officially banned her from the UK as she was a 'danger to the public' or something along those lines. Lots of views both supporting and opposing her, and apparently a case being made to sue the UK government in response.
2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
Also, a man literally arrested for making a joke about the Hitler and the Holocaust. Very controversial with almost binary agree or disagree views taken by most of the public.
Now, should we be concerned that our courts are threatening people with prison sentences over their personal subjective viewpoints? It all comes down to the public order act passed in to law in 1986:
Hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.
Americans that I've spoken to in particular seem to always bring this kind of stuff up when they mention UK politics, because in their eyes, this law is disgraceful and sets us on the path of '1984'. In ways they aren't wrong, as dictatorships almost always seem to begin with the removal of freedom of expression (Enabling act of 1933 in Germany being the biggest and by far the most extreme example of them all)
My personal viewpoint is that regardless of whether I agree or disagree with someone, they should all be given a voice for the sake of both democracy and living a life free from control and fear of being repressed. And for goodness sake, the Nazi salute situation was a joke, albeit rather an edgy one, but a joke nonetheless, and I wouldn't mind betting there are a numerous members of the Jewish community who agree with this and are probably just as concerned about him facing Jail.
I mean the first and most obvious point surely is that there can't be freedom of speech whilst hate speech laws exist and that freedom must mean freedom regardless of offence caused. The bigger question is where do we draw the line on hate speech and what does the future hold.... or should we not worry about it at all? . Be interested to hear views...
 
With you mentioning America, it does always make me laugh when Americans refer to guns being such a necessary part of their life, being described as a "tool" in a similar fashion to farming equipment. Relating back to the forum title, I do believe in rights but like guns, hate speech should not be allowed in this country. Freedom of speech should never be misused to be an excuse to just be racist with negative intentions.
 
Live footage of the UK government!

0226snowflake4.jpg
 
Well there's a big difference there, @TPC.... Words don't exist for the sole reason of murdering other humans.

I couldn't agree more with the OP. The recent events mentioned are frankly terrifying. Unless someone is making a direct threat, or directly inciting violence (and even that's a vague term open to interpretation) then then "freedom of speech" should apply.

The idea that you can be arrested and convicted for teaching a dog to wave a paw in the air boggles my mind. The very nature of humour means it will always offend someone. (Whether or not this was actually funny doesn't matter). Christ, given some of the stuff I've posted on this very forum over the years, should I be worried‽

If you're not familiar with his work, I'd recommend checking out "Sargon of Akkad" on Youtube. He has plenty of material on free speech, including an interview with Lauren Southern after she was banned from the UK, covering, among other things, the insane questions she was asked under interrogation at the boarder.

These are scary times.
 
Last edited:
Free speech (in public) is an illusion.

If a person wants to express an unpopular opinion, let them, don't shout them down, censor, arrest or jail them, let them make their point, surely it is up to the audience to decide if the viewpoint is a valid one or not, contrary to popular belief most people have a brain and can decide whether they agree with something or not and present a viable counter argument if necessary.

All this censoring, public shaming and 1984 type stuff is only making things worse.
 
Lauren did mention in one of her clips that they were effectively labeling her a terrorist in all but name. Anyone heard of the Snoopers Charter? This is a law that is supposed to give the government more powers to find 'terrorists' http://www.alphr.com/politics/10048...tigatory-powers-act-and-how-does-it-affect-me
It apparently allows the government to force companies to remove encryption from their websites in order to gain data about users, and also the ability to see the browser history of all web users. Of course this is all apparently being done to keep us safe, but these kinds of mass surveillance tools can be far too easily misused. With these scarily subjective hate speech laws, the government could use this to root out 'terrorists' (aka people who go against their line of thought or offend them) from their homes as they use the internet.
The solution to this problem is using a VPN, a self-encryption tool that is commonly associated with free speech on the internet across the world. I mean, we're not at the stages where we are all needing to use this YET, but it is rather useful nonetheless.
I will check out the Sargon of Akkad interview shortly :)
 
I've been thinking I should get round to using a VPN for ages. With my levels of paranoia, it's practically mandatory!

(I'm so glad someone else started this topic. Good to know there are like minded people out there).
 
I’ve done a video on this topic for my YouTube channel, after a woman was reported to the police for tweeting anti-trans messages.

As a transsexual myself, I support the right for people to speak opinions I disagree with:

 
We are unfortunately still the minority I think @DiogoJ42, far more people are happy to bend over and take one in the name of being kept safe than there are those that aren't.

Those who frequent the pet hates topic know my beef with my sons school, but for those that don't, here's a couple stunts they have tried to pull over the last few years:

Mandatory fingerprinting of all students (for canteen sales and library withdrawals).
Mandatory handing over mobile phones "any time the school see fit" and said phones must be unlocked by student for examination (breaks about five different laws).

Suffice to say my son has neither had his fingerprints taken nor been forced to unlock his phone but it has been a fight just to stop them doing things they should never even be considering, and from what I gather we are only one of maybe FIVE parents who objected, which means there are 270 other families who either don't know, or don't care that their children are being conditioned to accept this to be the norm, which is both very very sad, and frightening at the same time.

My newsgroup access is encrypted and I occasionally use a VPN to get around FA blocks, does this make me an enemy of the state now?
 
That's the problem. People will shrug it off and think "Oh we're a democratic, highly developed Western country, there's nothing to fear about" or joke about it as if it didn't matter and that is precisely the kind of leniency that allows it to slowly pick up and become worse. The worst part of what that leads to (hopefully a fantasy scenario) is that the majority of the population wouldn't realize what is happening as they lose their freedom of speech.
I know the Information Age started in the 60s, but I think we're in to the next stage of it now; robots starting to appear, data surveillance, Internet records. We've got to be more vigilant at the very least. I think it can go in the right direction, and we can still maintain data protection, civil liberties, freedom of expression, minimize digital surveillance ect but it can just as easily go the other way. The issue here seems to be accountability of the government. e petitions are pretty useless, but if we managed to get referendums to overturn hate speech laws and the Snoopers charter, that would be a good start...
 
Coming down hard on literal fascists and weirdo edgelords is excellent actually and people who espouse far right rhetoric should not be defended and promoted, and they absolutely should be shunned. Free speech does not give you a right to an audience or protect you from facing consequences, nor is it a shield to put up retroactively when you get in trouble. No sympathy for people like the Nazi dog man or Lauren Southern, they know what they're doing and these appeals for free speech are an attempt to legitimise and promote their abhorrent views and play as victims. Don't get the wool pulled over your eyes, these people absolutely would not defend the rights of people who disagree with them and it doesn't make you a better person to give them what they want, it makes you a pawn.

Also there is no such thing as an ironic Nazi and yer pug fella is bessie mates with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon of the fascist paedophile haven the English Defence League.

Neo Nazis and white supremacists are in the ascendancy online and in the streets, and the Holocaust is still in living memory, so think on.
 
I was hoping we could go at least a day without Godwin's Law being invoked.

Surely it's better to engage in debate, rather than silence views you disagree with?
How is it Godwins law when they are actual Nazis and these people are already being discussed? And no it's not when they are people not interested in debate, ask the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish etc what happens when you let them climb out of the sewers these people come from.
 
Paraphrased/directly quoted from xkcd, but people shouting free speech when their views are challenged "is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express"
 
How is it Godwins law when they are actual Nazis and these people are already being discussed? And no it's not when they are people not interested in debate, ask the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish etc what happens when you let them climb out of the sewers these people come from.

Neither Lauren Southern or Count Dankula are “actual Nazis”, though.
 
By banning topics you disagree with, you are no better than the extremists you claim to oppose. The better solution is to let them have their say, then make your counter argument without resorting to screaming "FASCIST!" or other such name calling.
 
Something sort of relevant is I do feel like sometimes on forums that I am one of the only few people who actually are trying to be honest, rather than act really insincerely to rank up or go to press events. It does annoy me sometimes, particularly when I know they are faking the positivity. I know I can be quite optimistic at times but forced positivity really frustrates me.
 
There are people out there that think I should be dead because I like men instead of women, I don't really feel like hearing their explanations or reasons. Often these views are based in religion, with no prospect of changing because "god". No amount of hearing their side, or offering counter arguments, will sway them.

Where does their freedom to have and express their religions and views end, and my right to not listen to people literally wish for me to be dead?
 
Top