The censorious political left and free speech

Post Reply New Topic

Democrats did say quite a lot at the time, though to be fair, the foreign media had more coherent commentary than the USA's, where the narratives were all mixed up with tribalism, especially so at the just-after-election time.

Nevertheless, at that time, the Congressional Democrats attacked Trump for his hotheaded action of not seeking Congress authorisation before striking Syria, labelling the bombing “unconstitutional”.

Perhaps that was how Trump found out that he couldn't just do whatever he liked, like a French emperor, because the office of POTUS was bound by the rules... must have been a bad moment for him.

They supported it really. The mainstream media across the board supported both strike. CNN called him "Presidential" after the bombing last year. The 'gas attack' didn't even take place this year and Assad didn't do it last year or 2013. The only person in the US media who was asking the right and brave questions this year was Tucker Carlson. That should worry the left.

Not a political message. Sexual orientation is an immutable trait. No one should be forced to lose their civil rights in a free society.

Citation needed. I keep hearing people say that the liberals control 90% of the media or 99% of the media or all of the media but I haven't any evidence to back this up.

Yeah. It's free speech when a baker does it but not when Colin Kaepernick does it. Captain Hairspray even suggested he shouldn't be in the country.

[link]

Maybe we're talking about different cases. I'm thinking about the one in Ireland where the owner refused to print the message "support gay marriage"

I think this is the case being discussed
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

Ok thanks.

You are welcome.

I think the big issue is where do we draw the line in regards to free speech. Should we allow people to make blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic comments? Or does it depend on the context and content of these comments? What about if the claim their comments were lost in translation? It's a slippery slope and you will never find anyone in agreement. We should base it on what the majority consider right and wrong in these situations, considering we live in democracies.

Free speech means the right to offend. If you start crowing for laws to silence words you dislike the powerful will use it to take more freedoms away.

What about people who cannot defend themselves? Like non-verbal autistics, or those who are deaf/blind/have a learning disability? If we allow people who may be very charismatic to start petitioning to the public that severely disabled people are a leech on society, and then there aren't enough people defending these disabled people and it starts building support, what is the solution then? Remember - it was only last century that forced sterilisation, forced lobotomies, eugenics and forced segregation of the disabled was in play. What would happen if, by allowing people to say whatever they like without any deterrent, that this could result in the return of eugenics? Or the return in certain parts of the world to apartheid? There needs to be a balance struck between freedom of speech, and also ensuring that marginalised groups aren't further marginalised by the use of free speech.

The state doesn't take away people's right to speak to help disabled people. No one claims that real disabled people are a leech on society, they claim people who are taking disabilities are.
Interesting cause there's still an apartheid System in the West Bank in Palestine. The odd thing is that there are moves to criminalise calling Israel a racist state.

Words suck but they don’t physically harm us.

Well, I'm not sure where you are from (I'm unsure as to whether you are being serious with Palestine or not tbh), but in the UK 2010 General Election, one of the parties standing for election had very anti-disabled policies in its manifesto, however, had made an effort to not mention this in any of its interviews, as it knew the backlash it would have received. Fortunately this policy was mentioned in the media, and they were forced to backtrack from this policy. A lot of people are scared to spout anti-disabled rhetoric due to the laws surrounding hate crime in the UK. My point is, if laws against hate speech were rescinded, that parties such as this, and people who support these parties, may begin to try and get more of the public to listen to what they have to say. Everyone loves a scapegoat, and if there is a severe economic disaster, people may try and say it's time to revive eugenics to get rid of the disabled as they are a massive drain on resources which could be better spent on those who are healthy and can properly contribute to society. It's far-fetched, I realise that, but it's still a possibility, which is why I believe that there should be a fine balance between free speech and laws to protect marginalised groups (such as if what was said was meant to incite hatred - it should be punished, but if it was said in a sitcom as a controversial joke, it shouldn't be. It should be based on the context).

I know. I'm a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Labour Party leader), who is very critical of the state of Israel and a supporter of Palestine, and I agree with him that Israel is essentially pursuing a policy of apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. This should not equate to antisemitism, as it is not criticising Jewish people, rather the government of a Jewish country. What would be next? That we can't criticise African nations because it would be racist? As I said - context needs to always be considered. If it is criticising a nation or its government - and it is not BECAUSE they are Jewish or Muslim or whatever, that they are being criticised, it should not be a criminal offence. IF someone is saying disabled people are ret*ds, are a drain on health and social care and therefore not of use to society, I would say that this is trying to incite hatred and fear and therefore should be classed as hate speech and punished accordingly.



Yes, this is true. My point is that if it is trying to incite hatred amongst people who may then try to cause physical or mental harm to a group due to getting brainwashed by the rhetoric of the people spouting whatever crap it is.

It’s not inviting violence unless the person calls for attacks on others.

I hate spaghetti, it’s not my fault if someone hears I hate it then goes out and kills people eating spaghetti.