Racism

Quote:

---

Just on your claim that "the info on a bus time table is always correct" and that "[whether] it coincides with the running of buses is a different matter"; if the info doesn't coincide with the running of the buses, then the info evidently isn't correct. How are you even disputing something as straightforward and self-evident as that?

---

It is always correct as that was what was written.

If asked what the bus time time table said you would simply repeat what it said.

Whether it was as intended is another matter.

Good night Tricky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

I have made a lot of assertions, which ones must I back up?

---

If you make any assertion, I think it's fair to expect you to be prepared to back it up - the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim and all that - so I'm referring to any assertion of yours that has been contradicted or challenged. There are plenty of reasoned rebuttals of your arguments and claims over the past few pages (not only from myself) that you've just ignored or evaded, only for you to later repeat the same refuted points over and over again like a malfunctioning robot.

Quote:

---

I called Stu the same thing to show how ineffective evidenceless claims are.

---

But this is obvious nonsense. Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end - be that societal manipulation or whatever - even if they are ultimately groundless and unsubstantiated. This is proven fact. What do you think propaganda and public relations are and why do you think they're used as tools of influence on such a widespread basis? They're employed by those who wish to influence because they're effective in directing public opinion.

The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence, just to use one example of where such claims had serious materially harmful and long-lasting effects. Those claims clearly weren't ineffective; they served US and UK geopolitical interests very well and helped manufacture consent for their military adventure.

Can you therefore accept that your assertion in this instance has been proven false? Unfortunately, based on your prior form, I suspect that you'll just ignore the refutation and might even continue believing your delusion to be true. Ho hum. Whether it's wilful dishonesty or some inability to confront the truth, this is why you create problems for yourself and I'd guess it's probably why you had trouble with Twitter, who you say banned you (although you didn't elaborate as to why).

Quote:

---

If every is making wild claim then none are believed people will only believe stuff back by evidence. *except* when you
have censorship in place and the only repeated hear one opinion (brainwashing).

---

Trump spouts nonsense on a near-daily basis. His nonsense is challenged by the media and others with evidence but plenty of people still believe him, so, once again, this assertion of yours that people will only believe stuff backed up by evidence in the face of competing claims is demonstrable nonsense.

Quote:

---

I didn't cal you anything as you didn't call me anything however were you to make baseless claims against me
I think I am entitled to return the complement.

---

Do two wrongs make a right? Wouldn't responding with counter baseless claims simply make you as bad as the person with whom you're taking issue who has just made the baseless claims against you? Don't you immediately lose the moral high-ground once you stoop to their level?

Quote:

---

The problem with regulation of free speech is who gets to regulate it?

Those who regulate will always regulate in their own interests.

---

We've been over this problem multiple times and I think I've covered it, so I'm not sure why you keep asking. Ideally, there would be no regulation of expression, but where it is necessary due to conflicting rights, it should be democratic, transparent and subject to as high a burden of justification as possible (so as to limit the potential for self-interested or factional abuse). I personally believe that to be much more preferable than unrestrained private power having a monopoly over public expression.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with free speech of anything so long as everyone gets to be heard.

---

But that conflicts with your absolutism, which will inevitably result in the monopolisation of expression by private power, thus leading to an overall restraining effect in terms of diversity of public discourse and who gets heard. Even in a society like the US, which has very liberal free speech laws, private power tends to monopolise the marketplace of ideas. This would be much worse if there was no regulation at all.

Quote:

---

Real problem of justice occur when one side is free to speak but the other is silence.

---

I agree, but reasonable regulation doesn't have to equate to one side having a voice and another being silenced. Who's advocating that? It's a false dilemma and a total strawman. You seem either unable or unwilling to grasp that we don't have to have a debate about extremes. You seem to want to only talk about extremes, as if it's a black-and-white issue, instead of dealing with the difficult and more complex grey stuff in the middle. It doesn't have to be a case of one extreme (absolute free speech) or the other (repressive North Korea-like tyranny); a happy medium can be found with the aim of protecting everyone's rights and well-being as best as possible.

Quote:

---

What we tend to see if that with libel laws those with the most money tend to be able to silence whoever they
like via threats of legal action.

---

I don't see why this should necessarily be the case if someone can prove the truth of their claim.

Quote:

---

So long as my voice can be heard I don't feel the need to silence anyone.

---

If your voice was suppressed, are you saying that that might constitute reasonable grounds for restraining others? That appears to conflict with your general position.

Quote:

---

As for the left complain about Trump censorship of seven words most of them had no problem the censoring of all of Milo's words.

---

Another total red herring, as is so typical of your posts. What does the left's alleged opinion of Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos (I assume that's what you're referring to) have to do with Trump prohibiting a national/governmental public health protection agency (not a left-wing body) from using a list of commonly-accepted scientific/medical terms? Why not just criticise Trump, in line with your professed principles? The left isn't a homogenous monolith either; there are people on the left who are liberal when it comes to free speech rights and there are others who might espouse a more restrictive approach.

Quote:

---

If you are confident of your case you do not need censorship.

That is how I see it.

---

Whether that's true or not, the debate is much more complex than that, because sometimes expression isn't just about the exchange of ideas; it can also be about infringement upon the rights of others. Reasonable regulation can protect those rights.

I'm not arguing that the censorship of ideas is justified, as I like to think that the best way to counter bad ideas is by presenting better ideas, rather than suppressing the bad ideas, but you cannot assume either that everyone who hears your confidently-expressed better ideas will accept them in a thoughtful and rational manner, even if you offer evidence in support of what you're saying. As humans, we have a rational side, but we are also animals guided by emotion and a survivalist instinct. Furthermore, not everyone has an equal platform, so you can't assume everyone will hear your case either, no matter how well or confidently it has been expressed.

As P_Stu pointed out above, you're a perfect example of how a person can just ignore factual ideas and evidence presented to him time and time again by instead sticking his head in the sand and continuing to believe and peddle disproven nonsense.

Quote:

---

I am with the US constitution.



Now that was just fine... untill


Suddenly there are a whole load of exceptions. Violating the first amendment.


Now the first amendment was 1791.

All the "exceptions" seem to have crept in the second part of the 20th century.

A bad bad move. And it has been downhill all the way since then.

---

I think such developments indicate the adaptive or "living" nature of a constitutional document. Of course, there is potential for political bias or abuse in judicial interpretation, but a constitution must be able to adapt to suit the needs and complexities of the society of the day. That exceptions to a defined notion of free speech were deemed necessary is simply a reflection of the evolution of American society from the point when the constitution was first codified. Those who drew up the document obviously had not foreseen or envisaged certain future scenarios that were to necessitate a more nuanced approach to free speech rights.

Also, there is a school of thought that says that the inclusion of the word "the" before "freedom of speech" is significant in distinguishing what is actually protected from all speech or expression:

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…." U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free speech."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

It is always correct as that was what was written.

If asked what the bus time time table said you would simply repeat what it said.

Whether it was as intended is another matter.

---

You're not saying that, just because some information happens to be written, that makes it "correct", right?

If an old time-table hadn't been updated to cater for a change in bus times or if bus arrival times are so off that you can't rely on the time-table, you surely accept that it would be fair to say that the time-table isn't correct in that what it says doesn't match up with current reality? The bus time-table example is just an example of something that P_Stu used (somewhat jocularly, I sensed) to demonstrate that your claim that "information is never wrong" is total baloney.

Here's another example; if a food company flat-out lie on their food packaging and claim that the food they're selling has no fat in it when the foodstuff is in fact full of fat, isn't that an example of incorrect (and misleading) information? In what sense could you ever say that that information is correct?

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

Eloquently put and entirely accurate, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

You haven't been banned, as far as I can see. You've simply been asked to back up your assertions with evidence/links, which is a completely reasonable request and it's just the decent thing to do in a debate anyway. If you refrained from deflecting and just dealt with the matters under discussion, that would probably help too. Name-calling doesn't help your case either. I don't think you called me anything and whilst P_Stu referred to you as a "convicted paedophile", it was quite obviously used with a heavy dose of satirical sarcasm in order to expose the ridiculous logic of your position. When you threw that back at him, it just seemed like petty name-calling as I'm not sure how it was supposed to bolster your position. It actually undermined your argument because you appeared to be using the accusation as a way to attack him. Thus, you must believe that some words can have a potentially harmful effect, after all.

You're not entitled to use this platform as you wish considering it is dahamsta who maintains and pays for it, as far as I know. In fact, you're not entitled to use this platform at all; you use it as a guest ultimately with his permission, just like every other user of the forum

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

---

https://youtu.be/swHAo5JZz6w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

---

Blackface has a long and ignominous history that is best left in the dustbin of the past. Some details on its use by whites in history here: http://black-face.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackf..._United_States

It has long-standing racist, dehumanising and trivialising connotations that might be akin to wearing the N-word, if such was conceptually possible.

This summarises why its use remains a contentious issue today, even if well-meaning: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex...ave-blackface/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Holmes

Blackface was a key component of the minstrel shows of the early 19th Century, in which white performers would play slaves and free blacks. These portrayals would be built around insulting, degrading, and dehumanizing stereotypes of black people: the aggressive "buck" with his lustful eye on white women; the freed slave who aspired to polite society but couldn't pronounce his words correctly; the unkempt, neglected black children who were disposable even to their own parents. Blackface demeaned black people, and desensitized white audiences to the horrors of slavery. It was bad news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYCaob7MDA8

What does that have to do with you, now that nobody on Earth was alive during slavery? Why is that still a problem in a country with a black president? Why can't I do it, even if I have black friends and several Kendrick Lamar tracks on my iPhone?

You still shouldn't do it, because it's still insulting. It still evokes that long, horrific period in our country's history, whether you want it to or not. It doesn't matter what your intention is, when the thing you are doing is racist. Look at it this way: you might have learned the C word from taking your woke ass to "The Vagina Monologues," but that doesn't mean it's a word you can say around your grandmother.

Without a doubt, there are some people reading this and thinking: "Everyone needs to stop being so politically correct. I'm not politically correct!" To which I reply: Yes, you are. You know how to alter your behavior to move smoothly through life. You know not to grab a female co-worker's breast and say HONK. You know not to smoke on an airplane. You wouldn't go to a dive bar in Wrigleyville this weekend, find the largest, drunkest guy, and yell "the Cubs SUCK" in his face. When the consequences are getting fired or fined or beaten up, you know how to behave. So why not add "considering the history and perspective of another human being whose daily experience is different from yours in ways you cannot imagine" to the list of reasons you should think before acting?

---

Guyanese-British Labour MP David Lammy, for one, was specifically critical of Griezemann. Sisonke Msimang is a black South African writer who has written against the use of blackface by white people generally. Julia Craven is an African-American writer who has also advised against its use at, say, Hallowe'en, whilst Jenée Desmond-Harris is another African-American commentator who has outlined why blackface is so offensive.

Craven wrote the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julia Craven

[F]or so many black Americans, blackface carries unavoidable associations of hate, violence and degradation, and that if you choose to wear it, you're basically broadcasting the message "I don't give a **** about black people's feelings."

---

So it's not just a case of "politically correct", "serially outraged" or "over-sensitive" white people taking offence at other white people on behalf of black people; black people themselves are profoundly uncomfortable with the notion of white people masquerading as black people.

I don't think many white people would be offended if a black person donned "whiteface" for entertainment purposes, but "whiteface" isn't tied up with a long history of oppression and harmful or subjugating racial stereotyping in the way blackface undeniably is and I suspect, if and when it is used, that "whiteface" is mostly used as a means of ridiculing the concept of blackface by sort of turning it on its head. The power dynamic at play is totally different as white people already enjoy privilege and cultural dominance in Western society. White people don't endure structural or systemic racism, whereas black people do.

Something which is a bit more serious though is that many people of colour attempt to assimilate and conform to the dominant white society and its perceived aesthetic ideals by physically whitening their skin. Although Michael Jackson also had vitiligo, he was a very prominent example of a black person who bleached his skin and changed his features through cosmetic surgery, for example, in order to appear white. Skin bleaching is also common in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia because many people of colour feel their natural skin colour will hold them back in life or that it isn't as appealing, beautiful or whatever. This is serious, not because it ought to offend white people, but because so many people of colour feel this way and feel insecure or inherently inferior simply on account of their darker skin colour and non-white appearance.

I suspect Griezemann was probably genuinely ignorant of the history of blackface and was sincerely well-meaning in what he was doing - I'm prepared to take his original explanation (that the costume was "a tribute") at face-value - but that doesn't give blackface a pass. His conditional apology was a bit lame - "sorry if I have offended some people" - and suggests he probably still doesn't fully grasp the fundamental issue, but, as he has been pulled up on it and the problematic nature of what he did has been emphasised to him, I guess he can take this opportunity to learn a bit more about blackface, its racist origins and the history of racial oppression of black people.

Ah, thanks, I had no knowledge of its history. Should've probably Googled that before asking! Surprised Tropic Thunder didn't cause more of a stir in that case, but then maybe it did! I do think I can recall some bit of controversy now that I think about it.

I've never seen 'Tropic Thunder', but, according to this piece on the film: "The reason that [Robert Downey, Jr. receiving an Oscar nomination for appearing in blackface in the film] is acceptable is that Downey, Jr. is not himself wearing blackface. Rather he is playing a character who dons blackface in a ridiculous illustration of Method acting."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

It already is monopolised, because there is censorship.

The monopolies in control exercise censorship on their platforms.

If you run a media outlet you should allow people a right to reply to your out
put otherwise you have an unregulated propaganda channel, ie the BBC.

---

'Ofcom to investigate BBC climate change interview': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42400653

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

Media watchdog Ofcom has launched its first broadcasting standards investigation into the BBC since taking over as its regulator in April.

Ofcom will look into whether Radio 4's Today programme broke broadcasting rules during an interview with climate change sceptic Lord Lawson in August.

The BBC has admitted the item broke its guidelines and said Lord Lawson should have been challenged "more robustly".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

If you make any assertion, I think it's fair to expect you to be prepared to back it up - the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim and all that - so I'm referring to any assertion of yours that has been contradicted or challenged.

---

Every sentence I write is some sort of assertion.

Now you have not detail the claims which I have not been back up.

If you want me to back up a claim I would suggest you detail it rather than making vague references.

I don't know which claim you refer to?

To make it easier for you lets start with my first post.

Quote:

---

Most of the people making such remarks, they are best ignored really, don't let them set the agenda, stick to the football.

---

Do you require me to back that up somehow, are you saying that is a false claims, if you are I'd like you to prove it.

I am being held to an impossible standard ie to defend myself against unclear accusations.

If you like being put on trail for being a "bad boy" and asked to defend yourself, against what exactly????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

"I called Stu the same thing to show how ineffective evidenceless claims are. " - me

But this is obvious nonsense.

---

Well it is obviously nonsense to you, but that is because you are wrong.

You are assuming you know my intention and you can't because you are not a mind reader.

That *was* my intention and I am the only person who can truly know what my intention was.

I could have lied about it of course however I didn't an even if I did you can never prove it, you are not an
omnipotent all seeing all knowing god.

Can of course I do not have the time nor inclination to respond everything in every post. I'd be here forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

'Ofcom to investigate BBC climate change interview': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42400653

---

All the government "regulators" are corrupt.

The first thing any organisation does is to buy it's regulator same as the energy companies bought the energy regulator *in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

But this is obvious nonsense. Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end - be that societal manipulation or whatever - even if they are ultimately groundless and unsubstantiated. This is proven fact. What do you think propaganda and public relations are and why do you think they're used as tools of influence on such a widespread basis? They're employed by those who wish to influence because they're effective in directing public opinion.

---

"Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end"

Not false claims made in an open and free society were free speech is not censored, if free speech is censored
then such propaganda can be effective, that is what Hitler was a keen censor, propaganda which can be openly
proved false just exposes the propagandist for the liar they are and makes future propaganda less effective.

But with censorship in place the world if you oyster, nobody can challenge your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence, just to use one example of where such claims had serious materially harmful and long-lasting effects. Those claims clearly weren't ineffective; they served US and UK geopolitical interests very well and helped manufacture consent for their military adventure.

Can you therefore accept that your assertion in this instance has been proven false? Unfortunately, based on your prior form, I suspect that you'll just ignore the refutation and might even continue believing your delusion to be true. Ho hum. Whether it's wilful dishonesty or some inability to confront the truth, this is why you create problems for yourself and I'd guess it's probably why you had trouble with Twitter, who you say banned you (although you didn't elaborate as to why).

---

"The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence"

Can you expand on that?

As far as I can recall it went to a vote in parliament.

I can't claim to know the minds of those who voted, neither can you be sure of why they voted, you are not a mind reader, and what seems "obvious" to you may well be 100% wrong.

There is however strict censorship in government, particularly on matters of defence, if you reveal such info you can end
up in jail.

We do not know on what basis the decision was made, it went to a vote.

Quote:

---

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._check.svg.png Aye	Labour Party (254), Conservative Party (146), Ulster Unionist Party (6), Democratic Unionist Party (5), Independent Conservative (1)	412 / 659
No	Labour Party (84), Liberal Democrats (52), Scottish National Party (5), Plaid Cymru (4), Conservative Party (2), Independent Community and Health Concern (1), Social Democratic and Labour Party (1)

---

But as you know much censorship of information operates in the UK.

https://www.alternet.org/story/16274...old_about_iraq

Quote:

---

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrilytold The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

---

OK so why didn't Department of Energy officials come forward to deny that claim at the time???

But anyhow how a tube can be use is and open question and of course "other equipment" could be anything.

Quote:

---

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is ****ed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

---

So if people knew it was a lie, why did they keep quiet?

I mean it is really hard to see how *more censorship* would have helped here lol.

I mean basically those corrupt lying governments were would be and still are the ones in charge of the censorship. FAIL!

The argument is ridiculous, that that censorship by by the censors of a corrupt lying government will censor the lies of such a government - ridiculous.

Do you require a prove of that self evident statement?

Just like the Nazi censors kept Hitler to the straight and narrow? LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Trump spouts nonsense on a near-daily basis. His nonsense is challenged by the media and others with evidence but plenty of people still believe him, so, once again, this assertion of yours that people will only believe stuff backed up by evidence in the face of competing claims is demonstrable nonsense.

---

Citation?

example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Another total red herring, as is so typical of your posts. What does the left's alleged opinion of Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos (I assume that's what you're referring to) have to do with Trump prohibiting a national/governmental public health protection agency (not a left-wing body) from using a list of commonly-accepted scientific/medical terms? Why not just criticise Trump, in line with your professed principles? The left isn't a homogenous monolith either; there are people on the left who are liberal when it comes to free speech rights and there are others who might espouse a more restrictive approach.

---

But I though you though censorship was a grand thing, the bedrock of all good?

So why have a problem with Trump censoring words? He is the numero uno, the most trusted, the fountain of knowledge the
one you look up to. You look to authority for guidance and he is your #1. he is your "god" are you challenging your "god" now?
He is the head censor so it is for the greater good.

TRUMP IS THE GOVERNMENT, HE IS SPECIFICALLY *ELECTED"

HE IS THE CENSOR IN CHIEF, THE HEAD OF OPPS.

You should listen to him, not some unelected government department.

Twitter was not elected, it has no mandate from the public to ban anyone.

Quote:

---

"Censorship was rampant throughout Twitter . Censorship ensured that people could only see what the Twitter wanted people to see, hear what they wanted them to hear and read only what the Twitter deemed acceptable.

---

Replace Twitter with Nazi Germany as that gets you to the original text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Quote:

---

The problem with regulation of free speech is who gets to regulate it?

Those who regulate will always regulate in their own interests.

---

We've been over this problem multiple times and I think I've covered it, so I'm not sure why you keep asking. Ideally, there would be no regulation of expression, but where it is necessary due to conflicting rights, it should be democratic, transparent and subject to as high a burden of justification as possible (so as to limit the potential for self-interested or factional abuse). I personally believe that to be much more preferable than unrestrained private power having a monopoly over public expression.

---

I cannot recall you ever answering it satisfactorily to my mind. You maybe have made so response but it cannot ever answer it
as we are talking about a fundamental truth here, which is that censorship will never get you closer to the truth in an ideal world.

Whilst there maybe some issues with free speech they are nothing in comparison to those of censorship.

I can't clearly recall you giving any convincing response. Maybe you post a video, diverted, can you put it in a sentence *of your own*,
I remember some vague argument about someone breaking into my home and putting porn on the wall but breaking and entry is a crime already. I have no probs with false association, I have been called a pedo. I am not dead nor am I living in fear.

I don't remember you ever having clear answer to that one, but now you guess you will fall back on some "I already answered" claim.

Maybe you did give a clear concise answer, if you did and I missed it it should be no trouble to repeat it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think such developments indicate the adaptive or "living" nature of a constitutional document. Of course, there is potential for political bias or abuse in judicial interpretation, but a constitution must be able to adapt to suit the needs and complexities of the society of the day. That exceptions to a defined notion of free speech were deemed necessary is simply a reflection of the evolution of American society from the point when the constitution was first codified. Those who drew up the document obviously had not foreseen or envisaged certain future scenarios that were to necessitate a more nuanced approach to free speech rights.

---

No the constitution covers the fundamentals, without free speech you have nothing, it keep the powerful in check and the constitution was I think was written by those not holding power so much, as opposed to amendments written by existing governments/elite to tighten their grip on power.

It was not and "evolution" but a corruption.

We can see freedom of expression being crushed on the internet we had it for a long time and nobody died, however as censorship
is increase people will die, mark my words.

You look at any state and the more censorship you have the worse it is.

I am not afraid of what anyone has to say so long as I have the ability to respond.

When I have no ability to respond I am very afraid.

Those who drew up the document were well aware of the value of free speech, as it did not exist where they fled from.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/g...edom_of_speech

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/freedom_of_speech

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/freedom_of_speech

Quote:

---

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

---

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/b...edom_of_speech

Quote:

---

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin

---

Quote:

---

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Robert Kennedy

---

And of course the last one is the most important, without free speech you are blind and powerless to what is happening in the
world.

You are no longer a person.

You think there is some benefit in being blind, guided by some trusted person.

No thanks, I trust my own eyes and ears to stop me walking over a cliff.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Robert Kennedy
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/r...edom_of_speech

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/b...edom_of_speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Also, there is a school of thought that says that the inclusion of the word "the" before "freedom of speech" is significant in distinguishing what is actually protected from all speech or expression:

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…." U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free speech."

---

That is just nonsense and gobbledgook.

I have no problem with false testimony under oath, I assume everyone if lying.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, but of course I also have the freedom not to believe, there is no problem there.

But in court we listen to *all* the evidence, one side is almost by definition lying, otherwise there would be mouthing to judge.

This U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is part of the problem. He is stupid beyond belief, everyone convicted in court
has lied under oath by definition as have those who supported his innocence.

You have to assume as a starting point that everyone is lying or may be lying and give a verdict based on your judgement beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem Tricky is the same one that’s been there since the beginning of this thread,that is that you simply don’t understand what free speech means.That you would quote Robert Kennedy in support of your poisonous,hate-filled nonsense without any sense of irony would be funny if you weren’t such a worrying, warped person. Robert Kennedy was a pioneering campaigner for equal rights and for free speech.You are a campaigner for the’right’ for rascists to abuse ethnic minorities.There is no such ‘right’ nor should there be in any civilized society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Good night Tricky?

---

Was it? For me? I am not at liberty to disclose that information. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

The problem Tricky is the same one that’s been there since the beginning of this thread,that is that you simply don’t understand what free speech means.That you would quote Robert Kennedy in support of your poisonous,hate-filled nonsense without any sense of irony would be funny if you weren’t such a worrying, warped person. Robert Kennedy was a pioneering campaigner for equal rights and for free speech.You are a campaigner for the’right’ for rascists to abuse ethnic minorities.There is no such ‘right’ nor should there be in any civilized society.

---

Actually I am aware that when JFK made that speech free speech in the USA was already much compromised which was a problem for me I though about deleting it, Indeed I didn't fully watch is as it did not seem to be what I was expecting. seems I didn't not though.

I prefer short quotes I posted after. They were much clearer than JFK's ramble.

Indeed he started talking about foreign governments, I though he was gonna talk about in the USA LOL!!

(I mean, right so the USA is perfect and everyone else corrupt? lol)

Robert Kennedy didn't seem to succeed in removing the restrictions made to freedom of speech after the constitution was written so I ave no respect for him.

I am a campaigner for free speech and that of course include hate speech.

I believe racists have as much right to free speech as anyone else and I would defend that right
even though I might profoundly disagree and find disgusting what they say. 100%

Because that is my right to know about the world in which I live, without that I am not a human being equal to all other human beings.

I do not want to be a second class citizen, you want be to be one, but bizarrely you believe in equality.

I am an ethnic minority btw I am Irish in the UK.

I have no problem with folk giving abuse to me so long as I can reply.

So abusive speech is OK with me, however that is not a license for physical abuse I do not subscribe to that as you seemed perhaps to imply?

Oh and its it OK to abuse people who are not ethnic minorities? That implication seems to be that is just fine? Is that the case? And why? Are we not all equal?

It is not just about the freedom to speak but the freedom to listen.

If you do not want do know what is going on in the world in which you are living I would say you are insane.

You can't have democracy without knowledge and freedom to listen.

Seriously I think anyone who wants what can see hear or read so be censored is making a big big mistake.

If you do I ask you who is your ideal censor?

I'd love to hear your answers to that one!

I mean do you not even trust yourselves?

But we have talked a lot about internet censorship, now it is time to take a look at how censorship worked in the real world and who uses it.


https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e8/d1/90/e...ed-up-cops.jpg

The Jonas Brothers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

---

I guess given the number of own goals Richard Dunne has scored I guess going to a party dress as a suicide bomber would be quite appropriated.

Heard the one about the suicide bomber who went to a fancy dress party dressed as Richard Dunne?

The censors seem to think the population are mindless morons who will blindly believe and follow every thing they read.

Now I don't think that at all, I see the population as intelligent human beings able to think for themselves.

I guess that is because we tend to see the general population as a reflection of ourselves?

Tricky - you still haven't addressed the issue of "free speech" on a death certificate. You say it's never happened, therefore free speech is harmless. I say it has happened, and have given an example. A particularly relevant example, given it involved the politics of the North which saw an awful lot of hate speech and an awful lot of death over an awful long time. As far as I can see, my example fundamentally hits at the base of your view here.

I think you either need to refute my counter-point or change your view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Tricky - you still haven't addressed the issue of "free speech" on a death certificate. You say it's never happened, therefore free speech is harmless. I say it has happened, and have given an example. A particularly relevant example, given it involved the politics of the North which saw an awful lot of hate speech and an awful lot of death over an awful long time. As far as I can see, my example fundamentally hits at the base of your view here.

I think you either need to refute my counter-point or change your view.

---

What this?

Quote:

---

Twelve people were killed, and the city coroner, TE Alexander, in reporting his finding that the cause of death was gunshot wounds in each case, gave his view that inflammatory and provocative speeches from "so-called leaders of public opinion" were responsible"

---

Think he said gunshot wounds not free speech.

The cause was nothing to do with free speech, indeed it was free speech which brought about an end to such things.

They actually cause goes back a long way in history and it certainly was not caused by free speech, at least I think so however I am not 100% what you refer to but the general cause was a lack of civil rights and that includes free speech.


There is a lot of hate that goes around and a lot of it is now expressed via speech. Often it is expressed by a bullet.

If you don't discuss problem you can't resolve them and means listening to "hate speech".

Suppressing "hate speech" leads to more violence and it is a made up nonsense term anyway as some hate speech is perfectly acceptable, the way it goes is the hate speech of the powerful is just fine but the response from those they are attacking is unacceptable.

Speech is the least harmful way of making a point.