Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Free speech watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighPlaces)
    But the 'incitement to hatred' thing is predicated on perception rather than fact (if one can ever factualise something so broad and open to manipulation). So, for example, people are being accused of all manner of things when they mistakenly use the "wrong" pronoun for someone who has decided to "change" their gender. It is absurd to label that as hate speech and to include 'offensive' as a condition is madness.
    Oh - not that old chestnut. Telling people to kill all Muslims is inciting hatred. Calling someone "he" rather than "she" is called a slip of the tongue. My students do it to me all the time. Calling someone "he" when they have specifically asked you to address them as "she" is being an arse and discriminating against them because you want to label them "he" when they define themselves as "she" is against the law and rightly so.

    But ultimately it is just common courtesy. You wouldn't call someone Bob when they introduced themselves as Dave. No one puts a label on you. Who are you to label others, free speech or no free speech?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Oh - not that old chestnut. Telling people to kill all Muslims is inciting hatred. Calling someone "he" rather than "she" is called a slip of the tongue. My students do it to me all the time. Calling someone "he" when they have specifically asked you to address them as "she" is being an arse and discriminating against them because you want to label them "he" when they define themselves as "she" is against the law and rightly so.
    Punishing someone for not saying something is a gross and abrupt violation of free speech as well as autonomy. The fact that you think people should be punished for choosing not to listen to someone is startling. Is it rude to not comply? Sure. Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

    The fact that its common courtesy doesn't mean sh*t. It's also common courtesy to not swear in front of children, but I don't think it should be illegal.

    I will never understand statists.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Don't believe everything the press says. It is exceedingly rare for any student union to ban a speaker, apart from those associated with organisations that put government has determined ate terrorist linked groups.

    I challenge anyone here to give me the names and evidence of 10 speakers banned from speaking at student unions in the last twelve months. Given how widespread the press makes out it is.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...kers-question/

    Booooom whaddup. A possible unlimited number of speakers banned. By the way, I know for a fact I could find even more examples at other unis if I bothered to spend the time collecting links for you. But I won't, if you want to stay ignorant about this, it's your problem.

    The right said it first with how the regressive left is brutalizing campuses. Now they are hitting their supposed own. They are framing differing opinion as "hate speech" in order to silence. They are authoritarian and a danger to society.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Nobody is denying that.

    But verbal harassment shouldnt be a crime - it has everything to do with free speech.

    Free speech is when you can say anything without being legally persecuted. If I harass someone online using words, I can get arrested for that and I think that is ridiculous.
    Yes it very much should be. I knew why I thought of you what I did from that other thread.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    We really don't. I don't want to be subjected to vile hatred just because someone feels they have the right to decant it. We have laws in this country that prevent people from harming each other and from stealing. I am satisfied that laws also keep a cap on what people can say. Incitement of hatred of violence is a pretty good line to draw in the sand if you ask me.
    The problem arises when you let people decide what that means.

    The regressive left just love to cry "hate speech" and silence others under that blanket. There is no more objective criteria of what that means.*

    Look at ****ing Milo - was it all the no-platforming that were his downfall? No, he himself took it too far. None of these morons had had to lift a finger or protest him, in the end he did it himself. Their annoyance just played into his hands in the first place.

    *Though I fully agree with you, I think abuse, be it physical or verbal, is never ok. The problem is we need to find objective criteria for the verbal part. It just isn't as straightforward as physical abuse.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Oh - not that old chestnut. Telling people to kill all Muslims is inciting hatred. Calling someone "he" rather than "she" is called a slip of the tongue. My students do it to me all the time. Calling someone "he" when they have specifically asked you to address them as "she" is being an arse and discriminating against them because you want to label them "he" when they define themselves as "she" is against the law and rightly so.

    But ultimately it is just common courtesy. You wouldn't call someone Bob when they introduced themselves as Dave. No one puts a label on you. Who are you to label others, free speech or no free speech?
    This nonsense for example. It is hate speech to refuse to live in someone else's fantasy? In principal I have no problem being courteous, but categorically demanding people accept your fantasy is not grounds for hate speech if they refuse. Fwiw I am personally for a single pronoun for all. Would also stop the self centered rebels who call themselves ze or vey or ne. In the 70s these people challenging societal norms and expectations would have been hippies. Now they are "non-binaries" that try to seek affirmation from other people - and that's where it should end. Do what you want, but don't force others to play along.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...kers-question/

    Booooom whaddup. A possible unlimited number of speakers banned. By the way, I know for a fact I could find even more examples at other unis if I bothered to spend the time collecting links for you. But I won't, if you want to stay ignorant about this, it's your problem.

    The right said it first with how the regressive left is brutalizing campuses. Now they are hitting their supposed own. They are framing differing opinion as "hate speech" in order to silence. They are authoritarian and a danger to society.
    Except that isn't the case at all. A university society is free to revoke an invitation, that's nothing to do with banning free speech. What I'm talking about is the university itself, or student union actually banning speakers.

    It doesn't happen.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Except that isn't the case at all. A university society is free to revoke an invitation, that's nothing to do with banning free speech. What I'm talking about is the university itself, or student union actually banning speakers.

    It doesn't happen.
    Read the full article. Greer was revoked Bellos' invitation was revoked.

    The article is about a motion of Bristol's student union banning anyone branded "TERF". Anyone in the future. Not retrospectively revoking. I.e. every single gender critical researcher is banned. Anyone who ever published an article, even a purely scientific one that does not support the trans dogma, is banned.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Punishing someone for not saying something is a gross and abrupt violation of free speech as well as autonomy. The fact that you think people should be punished for choosing not to listen to someone is startling. Is it rude to not comply? Sure. Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

    The fact that its common courtesy doesn't mean sh*t. It's also common courtesy to not swear in front of children, but I don't think it should be illegal.

    I will never understand statists.
    When did I say people should be punished for not saying something? I said calling someone using the wrong pronoun is rude, consistently doing it is being an arse and discriminating based on it is against the law (see Equality Act) At no point did I say people should be prosecuted for saying nothing and neither did I say people should be prosecuted for not listening. I think you must be responding to a different post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    The problem arises when you let people decide what that means.
    Why is that a bad thing? We have a system of justice which either allows trained judges to make a call on the law or a jury made of of members of the public. The arguments are put forward and they decide. It is a good system of justice.

    People can cry whatever they like but it is our law courts that judge. You seem to be mixing up social media and the press with the law. Just because someone says something, does not mean it is true.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    This nonsense for example. It is hate speech to refuse to live in someone else's fantasy? In principal I have no problem being courteous, but categorically demanding people accept your fantasy is not grounds for hate speech if they refuse. Fwiw I am personally for a single pronoun for all. Would also stop the self centered rebels who call themselves ze or vey or ne. In the 70s these people challenging societal norms and expectations would have been hippies. Now they are "non-binaries" that try to seek affirmation from other people - and that's where it should end. Do what you want, but don't force others to play along.
    Now you are just making it up. But feel free to discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender orientation and then explain to the judge that they are living in a fantasy as you are paying your fine on the way out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    you want to label them "he" when they define themselves as "she" is against the law and rightly so.
    How is stating that against the law? I'm not aware of this...

    And also, saying 'he' for 'she', even intentionally, doesn't have any warrant for it to be illegal, it's less minor than name-calling on a playground.. :sigh:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    How is stating that against the law? I'm not aware of this...

    And also, saying 'he' for 'she', even intentionally, doesn't have any warrant for it to be illegal, it's less minor than name-calling on a playground.. :sigh:
    I always find it funny that those who have never experienced discrimination always liken it to a bit of "harmless" name calling and nothing serious, forgetting that for those on the receiving end of "harmless" name calling, it can be utterly brutal and very upsetting. If you have ever experienced discrimination, you won't know that it is one of the most degrading, dehumanising, de-powering experiences you can ever have.

    But feel free to have a go and then tell the judge that it is just harmless name calling as you pay your fine on the way out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I always find it funny that those who have never experienced discrimination always liken it to a bit of "harmless" name calling and nothing serious, forgetting that for those on the receiving end of "harmless" name calling, it can be utterly brutal and very upsetting. If you have ever experienced discrimination, you won't know that it is one of the most degrading, dehumanising, de-powering experiences you can ever have.

    But feel free to have a go and then tell the judge that it is just harmless name calling as you pay your fine on the way out.
    Of course I've experienced discrimination before.. :sigh: I just don't agree that using the 'wrong' pronoun deserves a fine or arrest, it's even less minuscule than most of the issues the word 'discrimination' connotes.. (Just to add, if the law were true, this could easily be abused by people claiming a different pronoun of themselves, anyone could do this, and frankly going to court for that would be a waste of time.)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    Of course I've experienced discrimination before.. :sigh: I just don't agree that using the 'wrong' pronoun deserves a fine or arrest,
    It doesn't. But if you are corrected, surely it is only polite to use the pronoun someone asks? No? If someone introduces themselves to you as Bob, you wouldn't call them Alice would you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    It doesn't. But if you are corrected, surely it is only polite to use the pronoun someone asks? No? If someone introduces themselves to you as Bob, you wouldn't call them Alice would you?
    I agree that it would discourteous to address someone by a different name to the one they told you to call them, but I just don't believe it should be raised to a legal level, it's too insignificant for that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    I agree that it would discourteous to address someone by a different name to the one they told you to call them, but I just don't believe it should be raised to a legal level, it's too insignificant for that.
    Again it - that bit isn't illegal. It is only illegal if you discriminate against someone. So if you employ someone, assign them your preferred gender and then force them to use the toilets for that gender you are discriminating and could see legal action.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Again it - that bit isn't illegal. It is only illegal if you discriminate against someone. So if you employ someone, assign them your preferred gender and then force them to use the toilets for that gender you are discriminating and could see legal action.
    Ok, that scenario you gave seems more reasonable... I can possibly see a few issues with this, but they're minor, and I don't feel the need to engage with this certain issue further as I'd divert the thread. This is about speech specifically, not all actions.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Now you are just making it up. But feel free to discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender orientation and then explain to the judge that they are living in a fantasy as you are paying your fine on the way out.
    Sex =/= gender.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Why is that a bad thing? We have a system of justice which either allows trained judges to make a call on the law or a jury made of of members of the public. The arguments are put forward and they decide. It is a good system of justice.

    People can cry whatever they like but it is our law courts that judge. You seem to be mixing up social media and the press with the law. Just because someone says something, does not mean it is true.
    https://twitter.com/4th_WaveNow/stat...34333131755520

    You are really this naive, right? You honestly don't want to see the issue arising here?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.