No Platforming?

LAM-SGC wrote: I think Islam needs to be controlled more. It is a dangerous sect as far as I am concerned.

Controlled in what way? Who do you want to control?

There are already enforceable laws in place that prohibit speech that incites actual violence and acts of terrorism. If those laws are not enforced enough that's a separate issue, and not one of free speech.

Easy Money wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: I think Islam needs to be controlled more. It is a dangerous sect as far as I am concerned. What happened to our noble defenders of "free speech", they seem to have disappeared.

We rational thinkers can't monitor this thread 24-7, can we?

Blacksword wrote: SteveG wrote: Blacksword wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: I think Islam needs to be controlled more. It is a dangerous sect as far as I am concerned. Controlled in what way? Who do you want to control? There are already enforceable laws in place that prohibit speech that incites actual violence and acts of terrorism. If those laws are not enforced enough that's a separate issue, and not one of free speech. Excellent response because it's true. A suicide bombing may be a political statement but it's not speech. It's not the words that come out of a person's mouth, it's an act or an action. There's some confusion in the minds of the frightened about this. And fear is what clouds people's judgments and reasoning. And when that happens then the terrorists have achieved their goal. If an Iman stands up before a congregation in a mosque and unambiguously encourages war against the infidels, he is breaking a law, and in theory can be arrested and charged with incitement. If he stands up and says "A womans place is in the home, and homosexuality is an abomination" he is merely expressing a perspective. Not a very nice one. Not one that I agree with, but one that he does/should reserve the right to voice. The issue I have, is that when you start this debate, people start ranting about Nazi's and communists. I have no problem with countering political extremes, but the accusations of fascism get hurled at people who just hold views that are just slightly at odds with the current climate and more in tune with the past, and actually don't incite violence and disorder at all....until someone on the far left suggests that they do, then all of a sudden it becomes an issue where there wasn't one before, and if you remove the right to debate those whose views you find unacceptable, those 'off colour' perspectives never get challenged and ridiculed out in the open. Instead they fester as part of an 'alt right' or far left subculture and that's what breeds militancy and violence.

I agree 100%. And as I've stated in an early post, free speech doesn't mean that you can yell fire in a movie theater when there isn't one in order to start a riot. Every right and privilege is not carte blanche and does have it's restrictions. I also believe that Nazis and neo-Nazis fall into the camp of extremes and opinions voiced here do not extend to those of a markedly left or right agenda.

Edited by SteveG - March 05 2020 at 04:38

^ I may be wrong but I think that Mr. B. Sword was referring to Iman's issuing fatwas  in the lands of freedom.

How free is 'free speech' in the real world.
If I go into a redneck bar in Collierville (just outside Memphis) and start pointing out that hollywood donald is a liar and a grifting con artist with no respect for representative democracy, if I keep at it long enough, I will eventually be physically assaulted and silenced.
If I go to the police and tell them my freedom of speech has been violated they will laugh me out of the building.

On the other hand, if the klan holds a rally in downtown Memphis, they will be given extensive police protection so that the klan are not given the treatment they have given to others.
This protection is of course very expensive and comes out of the pockets of taxpayers like myself.

So the murderous klan gets more citizen funded government protection for their speech than a mostly law abiding citizen like myself.

Easy Money wrote: How free is 'free speech' in the real world. If I go into a redneck bar in Collierville (just outside Memphis) and start pointing out that hollywood donald is a liar and a grifting con artist with no respect for representative democracy, if I keep at it long enough, I will eventually be physically assaulted and silenced. If I go to the police and tell them my freedom of speech has been violated they will laugh me out of the building. On the other hand, if the klan holds a rally in downtown Memphis, they will be given extensive police protection so that the klan are not given the treatment they have given to others. This protection is of course very expensive and comes out of the pockets of taxpayers like myself. So the murderous klan gets more citizen funded government protection for their speech than a mostly law abiding citizen like myself.

You must embrace the natural balance of life. The klan can't march through Harlem. I witnessed them try and they were not successful.

Edited by SteveG - March 05 2020 at 09:42

SteveG wrote: Easy Money wrote: How free is 'free speech' in the real world. If I go into a redneck bar in Collierville (just outside Memphis) and start pointing out that hollywood donald is a liar and a grifting con artist with no respect for representative democracy, if I keep at it long enough, I will eventually be physically assaulted and silenced. If I go to the police and tell them my freedom of speech has been violated they will laugh me out of the building. On the other hand, if the klan holds a rally in downtown Memphis, they will be given extensive police protection so that the klan are not given the treatment they have given to others. This protection is of course very expensive and comes out of the pockets of taxpayers like myself. So the murderous klan gets more citizen funded government protection for their speech than a mostly law abiding citizen like myself. You must embrace the natural balance of life. The klan can't march through Harlem. I witnessed them try and they were not successful.   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.

I guess my point being that in the real world folks like you and me know we have to watch what we say. If we go to the wrong place and say something stupid it could result in physical damage or even death. This is true of anywhere I have lived or visited all across the US, Europe or Mexico.

When the government steps in and protects murderous thugs like the klan or the nazis they have created a very unreal situation where people no longer pay the price for their stupidity.
You and I will pay the price for our stupidity if we say something stupid, but we also pay the price for the nazis stupidity via taxpayer funded protection.

Lets keep this simple. i have never received police protection for my speech. If I say something stupid to the wrong person I will have to pay the price or defend myself.
Meanwhile I have seen taxpayer funded protection for a nazi rally in San Francisco and a klan rally in mostly African-American Memphis.

Seems like an imbalance or injustice to me that those with a track record of murder and mayhem get better protection than a mostly respectful and law abiding person like myself.

Why not level out the playing field and provide police protection for all of us, I wonder how expensive that would get.

Speaking of Islam and free speech, a topic I've been quite vocal about in the past here, of course at this site we do have proscribed limits on our free speech -- see Site rules and guidelines

Note: "...Profanity - the deliberate denigration of another person's belief, will not be tolerated. Our membership is global, and thus represents a host of spiritual and religious beliefs. Given this, profanity is tantamount to personal attack (see next entry). Likewise, there is no place in this forum for bigotry (this includes religious bigotry, racism, and sexual discrimination) which are also considered to be personal attacks.
We are committed to not censoring messages or opinions, but this is a moderated forum. We simply want to maintain the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending any of the participants."

This can be hard to navigate. I like to say feel free to speak your mind, but mind your speech. I have been critical of Islam, Imams and schools of thought, the practices and intolerance in Islamic countries, particular sects of Islam (especially Salafism and Wahhabism and the Shi'ah form of people like the Ayatollah Khomeini), as well as religious texts (I have read a translation of the Qur'an and Sunnah --- some would say you need to read that in Arabic), and not that it should matter, but various of my best friends grew in Moslem households (Persians who fled the Iranian/ Islamic revolution). I definitely have had concerns with Islamism, and particularly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the Nov. 2015 Paris attacks, and the rise of IS, I became more concerned still.

Having expressed my concerns, despite being quite nuanced, I thought, I have been called an Islamophobe and that I was being racist, and all that by non-Moslems who seemed quite ignorant about what I was talking about. Islam isn't a race, and those people haven't the expertise or knowledge of my psyche to claim a phobia.   It seemed a knee-jerk reaction rather than people wishing to discuss such things rationally in good faith (and commonly such people have not done much research of their own). I'm open to different perspectives, would like to learn more, and hold no idea with absolute certainty. Criticism of Islam has seemed quite a taboo subject in a way that criticism of Christianity, Scientology or the teachings of Ti and Do haven't. I can understand that. I have been critical of all of those, and have sometimes rather felt, a la Hitchens, that "religion poisons everything" even if that seems more of a line to sell books.

If talking phobias, I do think such diagnoses and labeling is better left to psychologists (it's an irrational fear, and as corollary, hatred, that cause the phobe psychological distress). I would rather see less niqabs/ burqas when I go grocery shopping as I do, and I have discomfort with such a tradition, and would rather not see as much religious symbolism as I do where I live. I do have some fear of religion, especially conservative/orthodox/ fundamentalist forms. my wife was Pentecostal, and her church scared me. The speaking in tongues made me really uneasy. Maybe with me it does approach a sort of religious phobia, but then I could say I have had various phobias. Should I be stigmatised for it? Should I be more tolerant of intolerant people?

Bigotry would be the better terms for what people mean most of the time, although there are truly Islamophobic individuals, as there are true coulrophobes etc. Such terminology, though, along with terms such as Islamophilia are often used to shut down conversation. In Canada, we had an anti-Islamophobia motion put forward by Liberal MP Irqa Khalid despite already having hate speech laws. I suggested to our government that they should consult with psychologists/ psychiatrists to look into how much of this is a genuine clinical phobia and consider potential treatment options. My problem with such terms partially comes from stigmatising those who genuinely suffer form phobias. Perhaps partially due to my time working with people who have cognitive impairment/ intellectual disabilities, I also dislike it when people use "retard" as an insult.

I think that all religions should be open to criticism and even ridicule, and I do believe in a general right to offend. I believe in freedom of religion, but with limitations, and part of that is freedom from religion, just as I believe in free speech with certain limitations. I commonly am not that comfortable with ridicule actually, and I tend to dislike sarcasm (I like a certain warmth and good-natured humour in the conversation).

I do wish we could live in a world where we could try to act in a more respectful, and definitely rational, manner to each other while not necessarily respecting someone's ideas. Ideally speech would not to be shut down and people would argue rationally while really considering other positions.

Sorry for the rambling digression. If the student union at the university I do work for wanted an Anjem Choudary-type figure to give a speech, I'd want to go and ask questions, but my biggest concern would be security.



Edited by Logan - March 05 2020 at 11:06

Easy Money wrote: SteveG wrote: Let's make it even simpler. I'll get off my American Civil Liberties Union soapbox and give you my own personal views on censorship, which you've swayed from. Perhaps because your argument was not persuasive.   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. I don't want to bury anything, I just want police protection for my free speech just like the nazis get, thats only fair.

Excellent. I'll take that as a vote for  free speech. (With caveats, off course.)

Edited by SteveG - March 05 2020 at 11:33