Paris shootings

[Gwadien]

It's not in their best (self serving) interest I agree... but it's my right to protest vote and I'd like to do that without leaving the house

Indeed, hence why I'd be surprised if they did it

 

[Scouse]

I believe in rights for free speech, just not for cunts like him. There should be a fine line drawn between free speech and blatant hate speech.

Lol - you're such a retard.

Speech is either free, totally free, or it's restricted in some way.

By it's very nature the argument is a black and white one. There's no "fine line", no "balance". It's either free, or it isn't.

 

[Bodhi]

Greens it is then

Considering their complete incompetence in running Brighton, and their determination to take us back to the fucking Dark Ages, I don't think they'll get too many votes personally. Maybe some from the right-on crowd and a few Grauniad readers, however in general, they are an irrelevance. Like it or not the 3 main choices this time round are Tory (meh), Labour (haha you must be fucking joking, would be great to have the gurning mong representing the UK in world affairs!) and UKIP (give me strength).

Yeah we're pretty much fucked whoever gets in. It's getting a bit depressing voting for the least worst option.

However that's not entirely relevant to this thread.

What I do find interesting, is that a lot of the fruitloops who want to deny Charlie Hebdo their right to free speech, appear to be using their own rights of free speech to protest this. I assume this Mr Choudry is Alanis Morisette in disguise?

 

[BloodOmen]

Lol - you're such a retard.

Speech is either free, totally free, or it's restricted in some way.

By it's very nature the argument is a black and white one. There's no "fine line", no "balance". It's either free, or it isn't.

.... you take things way to literal sometimes you knob ^_^

 

[caLLous]

I believe in rights for free speech, just not for cunts like him. There should be a fine line drawn between free speech and blatant hate speech.

So you're ok with free speech as long as you like what's being said?

.... you take things way to literal sometimes you knob ^_^

"Literally" is the only way you can describe free speech. Like @Scouse said, it's either free or it isn't; there's no in-between.

 

[BloodOmen]

So you're ok with free speech as long as you like what's being said?

No, I just don't believe hate preachers should have the right to it. That goes to Choudry, Britain First, any other cunt preaching hate/brain washing people. Its quite worrying that you're all ok with it, people sticking their heads in the sand is exactly why these cocks manage to do what they do.

 

[Raven]

If greens ever got in power (lol) the country would be a wasteland within a year.

They only way you can show your disdain is by spoiling your ballot. It shows you have an interest in politics but none of them are suitable. Not voting just shows you don't give a shit. The "big 3" love a bit of apathy.

 

[Raven]

No, I just don't believe hate preachers should have the right to it. That goes to Choudry, Britain First, any other cunt preaching hate/brain washing people. Its quite worrying that you're all ok with it, people sticking their heads in the sand is exactly why these cocks manage to do what they do.

He has the right to talk nonsense and we have the right to laugh at him and his silly followers.

While I agree he should be punished for directly inciting violence, he should not be silenced. You can't have it both ways. We can't laugh at his ridiculous religion and then not allow him to talk bollocks.

 

[BloodOmen]

He has the right to talk nonsense and we have the right to laugh at him and his silly followers.

While I agree he should be punished for directly inciting violence, he should not be silenced. You can't have it both ways. We can't laugh at his ridiculous religion and then not allow him to talk bollocks.

This is what I'm trying to say, I have no problem with people spitting nonsense out on the street BUT when its someone blatantly just inciting hatred or inspiring someone to commit murder, that's no longer ok, why am I the only one who has a problem with that? example

Choudry on the street urging more radicals to commit lee rigby style attacks on the UK - that's not fucking ok, not by a long shot, if you genuinely think it's fine for people like him to sit and do that, I really do worry about your mental state.

 

[Scouse]

No, I just don't believe hate preachers should have the right to it. That goes to Choudry, Britain First, any other cunt preaching hate/brain washing people. Its quite worrying that you're all ok with it, people sticking their heads in the sand is exactly why these cocks manage to do what they do.

It's not sticking heads in the sand. Tolertating idiots and what they say - without allowing yourself to be transformed into an idiot yourself - is the only way free speech can live and thrive. It's called personal responsibility for your own actions.

Your way irrevocably leads to, well, godwin's law. People with opinions like yours are responsible for that sort of shit happening.

Your opinions on free speech are more more dangerous than any of the wank Choudry or Britain First have ever spouted.

But feel free to keep ejaculating them like great gobs of aids-encrusted munk so we'll have to start reading these forums with a blacklight...

 

[Gwadien]

I agree with Scouse, if you start restricting freedom of speech for individuals, how long until that web is cast wider, so you can't speak negatively on the Government?

 

[BloodOmen]

I agree with Scouse, if you start restricting freedom of speech for individuals, how long until that web is cast wider, so you can't speak negatively on the Government?

That's your choice, I can't make it for you. I still stand by people like Anjem Choudry having no freedom of speech rights at all, words are powerful, especially when they're aimed at radicals who will literally kill for the sake of a twisted version of a religion. The fact that he's now able to preach such things and get away with it (like he's been doing for years now) is just... worrying.

 

[Scouse]

I still stand by people like Anjem Choudry having no freedom of speech rights at all

Don't whine. You are.

 

[old.Tohtori]

All this from @Scouse makes it all the more ridicilous. Way too much hypocrisy for one day

 

[Scouse]

All this from @Scouse makes it all the more ridicilous. Way too much hypocrisy for one day

I'm free to call you a twat - and you're free to spunk up the forums with your idiocy. What's not free about such speech? I've never said anyone should be banned from saying anything, ever.

Patently not a hypocrite.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, sure. Not one comment about abolishing religious institutes for example

Or just two pages ago whining about someone insinuating you support killing people, then turning around and calling Blood a nazi.

 

[BloodOmen]

Don't whine. You are.

Alright.

 

[Scouse]

I find your joke amusing @BloodOmen but it doesn't detract or deflect from the very serious point I was making about you and your views.

Sorry to be a killjoy, but some things need to be said. No point in free speech if you don't make use of it to confront people that would see it's death.

 

[BloodOmen]

Yeah, sure. Not one comment about abolishing religious institutes for example

Or just two pages ago whining about someone insinuating you support killing people, then turning around and calling Blood a nazi.

Just ignore him, he's a vicious little tosser that revels in the misery of others.

I find your joke amusing @BloodOmen but it doesn't detract or deflect from the very serious point I was making about you and your views.

Sorry to be a killjoy, but some things need to be said.

What was that quote?

Yes, i'm a total Nazi for wanting to keep extremism out of the public eye, well fuck me right? i'm such an evil person.

 

[Scouse]

Yeah, sure. Not one comment about abolishing religious institutes for example

I've explicitly said I'd love to see religious institutions die and explicitly stated I would never legislate to that end or ban people from spouting their religious shit. So yep - no hypocricy there.

Or just two pages ago whining about someone insinuating you support killing people, then turning around and calling Blood a nazi.

Two pages ago I argued, using free speech, to defend myself from an innacurate label. I labelled Blood a Nazi because - by his own admission - he supports Nazi ideals.

Again. He's free to spout his dangerous bile. I'm free to call him a cunt because of it.

No hypocricy there either.

And you tbh, because you think "having a pop at scouse" is more important than defending freedom of speech wherever you find a wanker dumb enough to argue against it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm all for freedom of speech, i'm just using that free speech to say you're not. You're a hypocrite, always have been, and when you take your "speech" too far(like now) you deserve to be ridiculed for it.

You saying you'd love to see religious institutions die, and blood saying he'd love to see XYZ deported are no different.

 

[Job]

Declaring it an act of war and suggesting consequences could easily land him in court for incitement regardless if he is referring to a theoretical threat.
His position in the community and media would be taken into account...well for a white guy anyway...they are shit scared to prosecute Muslim hate preachers in the UK..wheras the US just throws them in jail to rot.

 

[Tom]

.... you take things way to literal sometimes you knob ^_^

 

[Scouse]

I'm all for freedom of speech, i'm just using that free speech to say you're not.

English lesson here then please.

I'm clearly and unambiguously for totally free and unfettered speech.

Including your freedom to ridicule me, if that's what you want to do. And my freedom to call you a total retard if you still think I'm in any way against free speech.

You saying you'd love to see religious institutions die, and blood saying he'd love to see XYZ deported are no different.

Yes they are. Clearly different:

1) Is an expressed wish to see the mental and intellectual evolution of mankind resulting in the voluntary death (through non-participation) of organisations that believe in supernatural megabeings - achieved through the medium of free, unfettered and enlightened argument (because I don't want to see legislation against them).

2) Is an expressed wish to deny the freedoms of a human being because you don't like what he says.

Again - english lesson for the finnish retard please.

 

[Shagrat]

Yes, i'm a total Nazi for wanting to keep extremism out of the public eye, well fuck me right? i'm such an evil person.

You are though thats the point. You cant deny someone the ability to speak their views in public just because you dont agree with those views.

What happens if a satirical magazine posts a front cover image lampooning your stance, you going to get tooled up and go round and shoot the place up?

The whole point of freedom of speech is that people can state their opinion, and the rest of us can mock it if its stupid. And if someone crosses the line then there are already laws in place to deal wiht that.

 

[BloodOmen]

Declaring it an act of war and suggesting consequences could easily land him in court for incitement regardless if he is referring to a theoretical threat.
His position in the community and media would be taken into account...well for a white guy anyway...they are shit scared to prosecute Muslim hate preachers in the UK..wheras the US just throws them in jail to rot.

I think Anjem Choudry has remained untouched for so long because Scouse has his tongue jammed so far up his arse, he's practically speaking for him. If there's one thing the UK is scared of its putting a Muslim hate preacher away... if its another thing they're scared of its an angry Scouser with a superiority complex.

 

[Scouse]

Once again:

I still stand by people like Anjem Choudry having no freedom of speech rights at all

Is much more dangerous than anything Choudry has ever said.

Basic knowledge of recent history proves this. And the fact that @old.Tohtori chooses to remain silent on this subject, and instead has turned on me for pointing this out lands him in the same freedom-destroying danger-boat as you.

 

[Chosen]

I am probably pushing some buttons here, but I kinda agree with BloodOmen. People are to hung up on freedom of speech, and yes while it is important having a freedom of speech, it does not necessarily mean we have to use it.

I for myself could never understand what the point is using the freedom of speech to clearly mock another culture/religion/view of life. Sometimes people needs to be protected from themselves.

When it comes to my own country(Norway), the way we are treating muslims is probably a lot more gentle then some of the other European countries. But still I tend to see som real disrespectfull things from time to time, regarding their religion and their lifestyle. Muslims all over the world have clearly said that they do not think it is ok that we draw mocking pictures of their prophet, and still we keep doing it, claiming it to be freedom of speech? Isnt that nearly the same as bullying?

 

[BloodOmen]

English lesson here then please.

I'm clearly and unambiguously for totally free and unfettered speech.

Including your freedom to ridicule me, if that's what you want to do. And my freedom to call you a total retard if you still think I'm in any way against free speech.




Yes they are. Clearly different:

1) Is an expressed wish to see the mental and intellectual evolution of mankind resulting in the voluntary death (through non-participation) of organisations that believe in supernatural megabeings - achieved through a medium of free, unfettered and enlightened argument (because I don't want to see legislation against them).

2) Is an expressed wish to deny the freedoms of a human being because you don't like what he says.

Again - english lesson for the finnish retard please.

That's the part you don't understand. For someone claiming to be so intellectual you're so fucking dense. I'll just leave that bold and underlined, maybe if you read it over and over and over and over again, you might actually understand why he shouldn't have the right to freedom of speech, rather than just looking at freedom of speech as a whole, which is clearly what you're doing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes they are. Clearly different:

No they're not, both saying "i don't like this, remove please".The only difference is that Blood is saying something you don't like. Figure that eh?

Though it's useless talking to you about it because you can't have one discussion with any person without calling them a dick, twat, cunt, retard, or any other 5th grade explative.

Oh and fyi; if you're going to whine about me saying "it's not my native language", then don't try and use the same thing against me like that.