Something that has always irked me are those (predominantly) far right political parties who demand the right to express their views citing that denying them this exposure would be an affront to democracy and free speech. Yet their avowed aims and manifestos are invariably totalitarian/undemocratic in the extreme and would result in all dissent or opposition being criminalised as their first act upon election. (That's why I voted 'No' with caveats) I also think the current trend in further education establishments where 'safe spaces' are being created under the pretext of protecting vulnerable minorities is disingenuous and counter productive to polemical or critical thinking that strives towards inclusivity. This type of 'snowflake husbandry' is starting to appear in the workplace where even the mildest rebuke or hint of criticism in written or verbal communication is castigated as negativity or worse still, abuse that can be escalated to grounds for disciplinary action/dismissal etc.

As an aside, is 'zero tolerance' for (insert something you consider indefensible here) just intolerance with a majority on your side?

Does this apply to communists as well? 

That still exists but I fear less and less so as time moves on. 

 

In Nazi Germany, citizens had no rights. No one could speak unless it was party approved propaganda and forget about any other personal liberties or rights like due process or a fair trial.

 

You brought up the Nazi's twice so far but you miss the irony of your statements. Is this what happens when someone is in a safe zone?

I used to be of this opinion but I no longer believe that a society can ensure safety to all of its inhabitants when deliberate hate speech of any kind is allowed to spread unchecked, and in this regard I support Karl Popper's stance that tolerant societies have a right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance. Direct incitements to violence and threats should obviously not be allowed but I think there should also be laws against more insidious means of hatemongering. To name an obvious example, I live in a country where denying the Holocaust is forbidden by law and I think that's a good thing because I frankly don't believe that anyone claiming to be a Holocaust denier actually believes a thing that they're saying and that what they actually believe is that the Holocaust did happen and that it was a great thing, but of course they can't say that so instead they try to disguise their ideology under a palatable veneer of scepticism and critical thinking, when in reality their only goal is to smear and dehumanize the Jewish community to the point where persecution and eventually genocide becomes socially acceptable again.

My view is biased because I am a member of a particular group that is in current times subject to a disproportionate amount of vilification and abuse (to the point where I'm afraid to express and present myself the way I would like in most contexts), but I do not hold the illusion that hateful people have honourable intentions or that their ideology contributes something of value to society.

So where would you draw your line in the sand? making the soviet gulag denial a crime, making the Armenian genocide denial a crime? (insert your choice of atrocity founded upon sectarian intolerance here  - the list goes on) There is precisely zero evidence that banning certain speech is going to change what anyone actually wants to believe. Holocaust denial should be tackled in schools, universities and the media, not the courts. Currently only 9 EU countries have laws against holocaust denial and for good reason: you can make a very compelling argument that criminalizing such speech merely fans the flames of perceived persecution that racists, anti-Semites and xenophobes love to exploit.

Lenny Bruce was famous for, among other things, saying "Don't take away my words".   He had a difficult career, in and out of court, and had a sad end.   I support his right to having expressed himself honestly.   He wouldn't have been as funny or innovative without it.

That said, the notion that words can't hurt you is just incorrect.   Words can hurt, destroy, slander, even kill, and the weight they carry must be recognized.   The pen is mightier than the sword, and words ~ like power ~ should be wielded with great responsibility and caution.

Anyway, don't know that one is mightier than the other. They are more or less homicidal siblings. Like the Menendez brothers.

Mirkaze wrote: ....I frankly don't believe that anyone claiming to be a Holocaust denier actually believes a thing that they're saying and that what they actually believe is that the Holocaust did happen and that it was a great thing, but of course they can't say that so instead they try to disguise their ideology under a palatable veneer of scepticism and critical thinking, when in reality their only goal is to smear and dehumanize the Jewish community to the point where persecution and eventually genocide becomes socially acceptable again...

I wish I could believe that, but we are clearly living in a post-fact world where beliefs are not beliefs to the believer. They are truths to them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And I don't mean the metaphysical stuff that makes the basis for religious/spiritual belief, I'm talking about things that happen on a daily basis. And anything outside of the scope of their immediate experience (any genocide, moon landing, rape allegations against malignant narcissist Cheetos) is nothing more than subterfuge meant to scramble their belief system and should be summarily denied, if not violently suppressed.    

That being said, I am certainly not arguing that either scenario of cognitive dissonance is more pallatable than the other. 

No, I mean the pen.   It's a metaphor most people still know and understand.   Who uses their mouth anymore?   Surely you mean a keyboard.

Either way, you get the point.

Restrictions on free speech is not the same as a police state - arguably it's part of it, but not even close to the whole of it.

I never said I would like to live in a police state.

But if they just didn't allow me to say certain things, and left me alone to do my stuff then I'd be alright.

I agree it's a difficult balance to achieve.

That would be a "trump'ism"?

Hi,

I think your view is ... lacking ... the history in Europe in the 20th Century, was the same in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and many other places ... even the pen is not allowed ... if you consider that my dad's film reviews of many American films were censored and cut up silly, so the review looks bad and stupid ... and if you don't believe me, there is a book published with both reviews and translated into at least 10 languages!

The pen, or being left alone, was ... not the answer ... and if you read Luis Bunuel's book, about the time and place and what happened in Spain, and how so many of his friends were murdered ... you might have taken a different thought and idea of how things are ... and if you think the "you're fired" generation is any different in hurting people's lives and putting them out on the streets ... well ... that's your choice, isn't it? That's your definition of democracy, right?

In a country where sexual activity between members of the same sex is illegal and can be punishable by death (say Iran, Yemen, Brunei, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, UAR, Pakistan - the list goes on) a religious leader's utterance that 'homosexuality is an abomination' would clearly not merely be a perspective but a summons to action. Just for the sake of attenuating my confusion: Your cited iman would have to be domiciled in a country where homosexuality is NOT illegal (say from your perspective the UK?)  You also say you have 'no problem countering political extremes' yet from the perspective of those qualified for this onerous burden historically, fascism and communism in Europe have been directly responsible for an estimated 14 million deaths* and we can add another 30 million* courtesy of Mao (*YMMV) Let's hear it for the moderates. I suspect I misunderstand most of your posts so apologies up front for that, but from my perspective you always come across like a frustrated Marxist slumming it on a musical appreciation site.

Hi,

One of the scariest things I have ever seen in film was one about these things, and one in particular in Iraq (and we don't know about other countries!!!), where some of these folks were giving out some "temporary marriage certificates", and in the end, the girl/girls are left out in the street, abused, sometimes raped, and with no future ... in the end of the film, the big guy in Iran, said that it was all a failure of the security system, not something that the religious order/faith had to address. 

What bothered me the most is that many of these folks considered themselves representatives of a religion, and they had nothing to show for it in their background ... one apparently did, but some of the others were basically run a house of prostitution with one of them actually providing "his own" girls!

I'm not sure what the real issue is, but the abuse and the lack of controls by the big names, is scary, and then one declares war and becomes this or that group ... and the other versions/denominations of it will say nothing about it because they want that power and ability as well!

The question I had was ... how many of these "platforming" was fake and not "valid" and should not be accepted by their religion ... but their faith is not centralized like the Vatican ... it is so varied and different everywhere! And the joke about allowing women to drive in one of those countries, is going to end up like this ... 75% of all accidents are women ... just to take it away from them again?

 

But we are free to say more than you give us credit for. It's only when freedoms are recinded that causes people to truly miss them.

 

Hate speech is a symptom of it's underlying cause which is hatred. Censorship does nothing to abolish hatred. If anything, it drives it underground. I would much rather know who my enemies are then guess who they are. As far I'm concerned every bigot in America should have a megaphone. If you think that their censorship will somehow protect you then you're mistaken. Hatred knows how to be covert and violent acts will still go on.

 

In the era of Trump it has come out of it's hiding place and is exposed. I'm grateful for that. If you woukd like to see it buried again and still smoldering, that will happen when Trump's run is over. But the hatred is not gone. Your fear is not gone. Nothing will have changed. The hatred will remain, be frustrated and grow.

That an organization like the klan can do the same in this country is what bothers you and that unlawful protesters get arrested instead of the klan. Like it or not, that is what free speech in the US entails. That doesn't mean that the klan is not listed in a FBI domestic terrorists list or that that frees the klan from investigation, arrest and charges for committing hate crimes. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you're really foolish enough to go to a redneck bar and instigate acts of hate against yourself, then even the police cannot save you. By the time they respond, you will have been physically injured or possibly killed. The police are not psychic and life doesn't work the way you want it to, in ignoring the reality that you have knowingly put yourself in harm's way and feel that you deserve some kind of special (nee supernatural) treatment that is not afforded to anyone else living.

Hi,

In that same film, btw, there is one of these "clerics" that states quite emphatically ... that "secular law is more important than civil law" ... and I think this is an important consideration in this discussion, and explains some of the things we criticize in that area ... but I'm not sure that PA is the right place to discuss it, and I think this topic should be locked, before we all end up hating each other? 

A very sad side effect of "opinions"!

 

Paradoxical, even.

 

 

 

I heard no mention of a lawful assembly with a permit in regard to your protest. Free speech has it's caveats.

I take back what I said earlier in this thread.

Who knew I would be living in a police state so soon after saying it might not be that bad?

It really sucks.

Sorry for being wrong.