Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    You seem to think that freedom of speech should be restricted because people sometimes get offended at things, which is a stupid and dangerous attitude to have.
    Freedom of speech should not be restricted, freedom of hate speech should.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No issues with this

    This is how freedom of speech works (but the we are of course free to call them bell ends for doing so)

    But this is rather apt

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Falooda? You can get that elsewhere Loool they have it in middle eastern and Asian shops too or just buy the make it at home yourself packets
    Faloodeh is orginally iranian
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    We must never let them into Eurovision. Never.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TakeEuropeBack)
    Holocaust is a lie it was thousand who died in camps the only thing the Germans gassed was to delouse, kill parasites like lice who's bites could spread diseases such as typhus! Everyone knows there were typhus epidemics in camps that killed thousands of people the British themselves spent some time to get this under control.





    Watch and learn it's a collection of the best revisionist works, including some Jews who actually care about the truth.


    Jews turned WW2, a war that actually largely killed Europeans into their Jewish Holocaust


    Look at how many died in Russian work camps! millions, but unlike the big lie holohoax the number varies. We have to believe 6 million Jews died, and only 6 million.. anything else is crime to question.
    How dare you.11 millions homosexuals, what the Nazis liked to refer to as 'asocials' ,disabled, political prisoners and Jews INCLUDING MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY were perished in this genocide.
    Yes. 6 million (now looking closer to 7 million) Jews including descendents of my family were perished in the Holocaust. I have been there- visited Poland and whats left of Auschwitz- seen the scratch marks on the walls of the gas chambers and the horrors that the millions of people had to 'live' through.
    Go and visit whats left of the concentration camps around Europe (and then you will probably say that's because it didn't happen- the Nazis destroyed the evidence and liberation soldiers had to for other reasons:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-6mom4WrF8)Go to survivor talks -see the number tattoos on their arms from the camps. Watch Schindlers list. Read Anne Franks diary. Go to Yad Vashem in Israel- see the childrens pyjamas and the pile of ashes in Auschwitz.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wu5PAtj5Ds- for the sake of your ignorance. Never again
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Freedom of speech should not be restricted, freedom of hate speech should.
    That is a contradictory sentence and sums up every muppet brandishing the freedom of speech instrument without any idea of where it comes from and its context. Not that your a muppet. It's hard to say, but you could have good intentions.

    Go read the ECHR. There is no extra bit on 'hate speech'. Instead there is freedom of belief under article 9 and freedom of speech being restricted when there is incitement.

    So freedom of speech is and should be restricted. There is no separate 'freedom of hate speech'. Contrary to popular bigotry, the United Kingdom DOES restrict freedom of speech. We have laws against hate speech, extremism and incitement. Whenever hate speech is restricted, so is freedom of speech.

    Freedom of speech isn't and shouldn't be overriding. It should be restricted whenever it does nothing beneficial, but does to something detrimental... i.e. play on people's sensitivities just for the sake of dong so, hence provoking major social problems. Why bother irritating people for the sake of doing it? Just makes you a *******.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    I am offended by your post. So by your logic the full weight of the law should now come down on you. Back to the 19th century with your blasphemy laws demon.
    Another TSR warrior trying to act smarter than they are. Blasphemy laws have nothing to do with this. Freedom of speech has limits and the law maintains these limits. So stop trying to say freedom of speech has no end. By law, it doesn't. You cannot say what you want and get away with it. It can be criminalised through racism, harassment, assault and various other things in the UK, let alone hate speech.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Those "limitations" include things like slander/libel and threats of violence or death. Any more than things like that and it is not freedom of expression. That's kind of the whole point of it.

    You seem to think that freedom of speech should be restricted because people sometimes get offended at things, which is a stupid and dangerous attitude to have.

    Why is it stupid and dangerous? It is stupid and dangerous to think the opposite. It is generally stupid and dangerous to offend people in a manner which achieves nothing beneficial.

    If you think Charlie Hebdo cartoons and Holocaust cartoons are not stupid and dangerous than I want whatever you're smoking.

    'Stupid and dangerous'... like, go on champ, well defended. You just wanting to piss people off because you disagree with their fairy-tales is pretty low. Defending the 'right to piss people off' so passionately is stupid and not that important. Social cohesion is far more important.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Another TSR warrior trying to act smarter than they are. Blasphemy laws have nothing to do with this. Freedom of speech has limits and the law maintains these limits. So stop trying to say freedom of speech has no end. By law, it doesn't. You cannot say what you want and get away with it. It can be criminalised through racism, harassment, assault and various other things in the UK, let alone hate speech.
    How does one assault someone with speech?

    Just because something is criminalised in the UK it doesn't mean I agree with it, or that it is objectively wrong. I would much prefer the decriminalisation of all speech (apart from public hate speech or calls to riot) rather than the alternative which is jailing people over tweets and pandering to religious morons with no balls or sense of humour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Why is it stupid and dangerous? It is stupid and dangerous to think the opposite. It is generally stupid and dangerous to offend people in a manner which achieves nothing beneficial.

    If you think Charlie Hebdo cartoons and Holocaust cartoons are not stupid and dangerous than I want whatever you're smoking.

    'Stupid and dangerous'... like, go on champ, well defended. You just wanting to piss people off because you disagree with their fairy-tales is pretty low. Defending the 'right to piss people off' so passionately is stupid and not that important. Social cohesion is far more important.
    Nothing wrong with being offensive for offenses sake

    Problem is some still want blasphemy laws but know that some parts of the world have moved from that so cry 'offended' whenever they can
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Faloodeh is orginally iranian
    Oh really? They sell it in Arab stores too and I'm soooooo addicted to it. In Dubai,I'd have a falooda every three hours
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    How does one assault someone with speech?

    Just because something is criminalised in the UK it doesn't mean I agree with it, or that it is objectively wrong. I would much prefer the decriminalisation of all speech (apart from public hate speech or calls to riot) rather than the alternative which is jailing people over tweets and pandering to religious morons with no balls or sense of humour.
    Assault can be committed by words in our country.

    If you want freedom of speech BUT for hate speech and calls to riot, then you are for limiting freedom of speech. Why not limit it for those who increase the chance of those practicing their religion from suffering from repercussions and backlash? That is simply unjust and shows your lack of regard of those who want to practice their religion peacefully. Lots of people hold beliefs that many of us think are delusional, but that doesn't mean that we stop them from believing in it just because we don't believe in it, and with that comes society's responsibility to protect those people, especially when the act does absolutely nothing beneficial. Ridiculing people for no reason and is rank. On top of that, 'pandering to religious morons' helps prevent alienation and making those people feel as though they don't belong, which increases any chance of extremism. So, people who promote uncurtailed freedom of speech are contributing to the very problem that they claim to be frightened off. The primary matter is that people are afraid of the unknown/foreigners/those who are different and are more concerned about that than the important matter of social cohesion. That's why we curtail freedom of speech in the UK on both ends of the spectrum. It's not a burden to bite your tongue when you want to offend someone for the sake of doing it. That's my opinion at the moment. Either that, or have full freedom of speech. Limiting it unilateral is contradictory and unprincipled.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    It's not a burden to bite your tongue when you want to offend someone for the sake of doing it.
    You aren't very clear so can you please confirm you are saying that it should be illegal to offend someone by criticising their religion?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You aren't very clear so can you please confirm you are saying that it should be illegal to offend someone by criticising their religion?
    Not merely for offending someone, but certain lines ought to be drawn (as they are). Holocaust denial being one.

    Offending people shouldn't be illegal but criticised and not defended with the vigour of the Charlie Hebdo. Obviously the terrorism is horrific but Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been paraded as any sort of heros and claiming freedom of speech is important as people were making out... well, it isn't really the case. If someone kicks my dog, I could their jaw without a care... so don't kick my dog. I still should still be punished if there wasn't a defence and it was calculated, but don't piss me off in the first place...

    Why would you draw a picture of someone's prophet ffs? And then why would you draw Holocaust cartoons? Those people need to think about their life.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Not merely for offending someone, but certain lines ought to be drawn (as they are). Holocaust denial being one.

    Offending people shouldn't be illegal but criticised and not defended with the vigour of the Charlie Hebdo. Obviously the terrorism is horrific but Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been paraded as any sort of heros and claiming freedom of speech is important as people were making out... well, it isn't really the case. If someone kicks my dog, I could their jaw without a care... so don't kick my dog. I still should still be punished if there wasn't a defence and it was calculated, but don't piss me off in the first place...

    Why would you draw a picture of someone's prophet ffs? And then why would you draw Holocaust cartoons? Those people need to think about their life.
    You would draw a cartoon to criticise what the prophet stood for, or to draw attention to some unpleasant or incongruous facet of it. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    You, on the other hand seem to be saying it is OK to react violently to being offended.

    If your religion included human sacrifice would it be OK to criticise that aspect of it? Even if that criticism offended its adherents?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Assault can be committed by words in our country.

    If you want freedom of speech BUT for hate speech and calls to riot, then you are for limiting freedom of speech. Why not limit it for those who increase the chance of those practicing their religion from suffering from repercussions and backlash? That is simply unjust and shows your lack of regard of those who want to practice their religion peacefully. Lots of people hold beliefs that many of us think are delusional, but that doesn't mean that we stop them from believing in it just because we don't believe in it, and with that comes society's responsibility to protect those people, especially when the act does absolutely nothing beneficial. Ridiculing people for no reason and is rank. On top of that, 'pandering to religious morons' helps prevent alienation and making those people feel as though they don't belong, which increases any chance of extremism. So, people who promote uncurtailed freedom of speech are contributing to the very problem that they claim to be frightened off. The primary matter is that people are afraid of the unknown/foreigners/those who are different and are more concerned about that than the important matter of social cohesion. That's why we curtail freedom of speech in the UK on both ends of the spectrum. It's not a burden to bite your tongue when you want to offend someone for the sake of doing it. That's my opinion at the moment. Either that, or have full freedom of speech. Limiting it unilateral is contradictory and unprincipled.
    Allow me explain why you are wrong.

    There is a big difference between calling for actual harm to a person or group, and hurting their tender feelings.
    Criticising a religion or the beliefs are NOT hate speech. Sure people want to practice their faith peacefully and that is fine, but if they want to live here they should learn to deal with opinions they don't like.

    Someone saying they don't like migrants or thinks gays are disgusting may be distasteful to some but there is no justification for taking away their right to say it,

    I know you think that people drawing cartoons of mohammed is "provoking them intentionally" but that standpoint treats muslims like children with no autonomy or responsibility for their actions. They choose to riot and should be punished for that choice. If they have a problem with it then I suggest they find a sense of humour and learn to draw.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)

    Why would you draw a picture of someone's prophet ffs?
    Because we can.

    It's really that simple.

    But these will explain it to you.

    http://jesusandmo.net/?sodoff=cartoon&key=transcript
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Because we can.

    It's really that simple.

    But these will explain it to you.

    http://jesusandmo.net/?sodoff=cartoon&key=transcript
    Meh, you're just a tosser with no life anyway. Perhaps the common denominator. Insult others when you have nothing going for you to make yourself feel better.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Allow me explain why you are wrong.

    There is a big difference between calling for actual harm to a person or group, and hurting their tender feelings.
    Criticising a religion or the beliefs are NOT hate speech. Sure people want to practice their faith peacefully and that is fine, but if they want to live here they should learn to deal with opinions they don't like.

    Someone saying they don't like migrants or thinks gays are disgusting may be distasteful to some but there is no justification for taking away their right to say it,

    I know you think that people drawing cartoons of mohammed is "provoking them intentionally" but that standpoint treats muslims like children with no autonomy or responsibility for their actions. They choose to riot and should be punished for that choice. If they have a problem with it then I suggest they find a sense of humour and learn to draw.
    Lol. How can you belittle anyone with views like that? You low-life virgin. Where is this muslim rioting? So you want to offend them all for the sake of it Sort your life out ffs. There is a lot more happening around the place to make it worth vesting your
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Meh, you're just a tosser with no life anyway. Perhaps the common denominator. Insult others when you have nothing going for you to make yourself feel better.
    witty response aside

    So you agree we do it because we can draw pictures of him or pictures of anything really from cats to horses to Jesus and mo

    It's not like we are making those who don't want to draw pictures actually draw him by force - upon pain of death if necessary (I mean how terrible would that make us!).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.