Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

A *NEW* Ethic question: Freedom from Speech

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jmervyn, Mar 14, 2018.

  1. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    We haven't had a think-piecey thread for a little while, so I figured to toss this up & see who jumps for control of the ball.

    A few here know that I was suspended for 12 hours on Twitter for the hatefully hatey hatespeech of saying Marina Sirtis' role of Counsellor Troy on Star Trek:TNG was that of the "bimbo-interest" (rather than 'love interest').

    A couple of days ago, a cutey cupcake YouTuber named Lauren Southern was denied entry to the UK because she had made posters that were anti-Islamic in nature, in response to some standard fare "Jesus was TEH GAYY!" anti-Christian material, which is generally prolific in the West. Story (Evening Standard) here:
    Lauren Southern detained at Calais: Right wing Canadian activist banned from entering UK

    Within the past day or so, an "alt-Right" (whatever that means) YouTuber comedian named Steven Crowder was suspended from Twitter supposedly for 7 days because he filmed a 'Trans' workshop at the "SXSW" festival. Story here:
    Twitter Suspends Steven Crowder for Violating ‘Hateful Conduct’ Terms

    So I'm wondering what others here think of this trend, frequently referred to as "no platforming" (i.e. default denial of an individual right to express views publicly on the basis of those views being deemed as either hate speech, inherently offensive, or irredeemably bigoted).

    It's becoming fairly open in the US to try to forbid or sideline conservative speech, particularly mockery of Progressive/Leftist views or behavior. Loz & I discussed the related 'postmodernism' issue to a slight degree, but I know that there are a variety of nationalities & countries of residence here so I was curious to know what others thought.

    EDIT - addendum: apparently the political group "Britain First" (which I thought was affiliated with the National Front but per wiki are open fascists) have been banned from FaceBook.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  2. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,264
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    416
    There is no unconditional freedom of speech, just like there are no unconditional rights of any kind. If there are conflicts of constitutional rights, it has to be decided which takes precedence. That's not freedom of speech in some cases.

    Regarding Lauren Southern, I neither know her nor do I know which kind of travel agreement there is between Canada and the UK. In any case, denying entry isn't equal to denying freedom of speech. She can tell what she wants, but freedom of speech doesn't include that others aren't allowed to draw any consequences.

    Regarding the second case, Twitter doesn't have to grant freedom of speech, just like you may not allow certain people to stay in your house after they said something which you don't want to tolerate and didn't stop when being told so.
     
  3. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    It hasn't gone unnoticed in the UK that not all speech is equal or equally regulated. It is apparent in the UK that anyone perceived to be attempting to "agitate" along the lines of race or religious belief is subject to a muzzle, regardless of how factual the speech might be. Conservative speech appears to be rather more closely policed than other kinds of racially motivated outpourings - this is still on Twitter, I see.

    Thus, I am permitted to address the cases of grooming of young girls in Rochdale by "gangs", but referring to that activity by reference to "Pakistani gangs" is "hate crime".

    I particularly like this little piece of helpfulness from London's Metropolitan Police:


    Hate crimes and hate incidents
    If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

    If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

    If you’ve witnessed or been the victim of a crime or incident you believe was motivated by prejudice or hate, visit our How to report hate crime page. There you’ll also find details of where to get help and advice if you’re not ready to report it to police just yet.


    Italics are mine.

    We are well on our way here in the UK now. The stuff that has been going on, out of sight, for years is now bubbling up into the mainstream, for all to see. And if you can see it directly, it's already too late to move out of its way. If the population has been successfully disarmed.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  4. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    I didn't put an exact question together because I didn't want to make the discussion overly narrow from the onset. However, I'm more interested in considering speech 'favoritism' and in particular the denial of others' speech as a remedy for something, rather than the more esoteric absolute speech.
    She was denied entry for something she had done as a mock issue in another country. Her access to the UK was denied because of the content of that 'speech', whereas (UK born) Anjem Choudray & his foreign friends frequently have far more "hateful" speech content.
    Nor does this forum have to grant freedom of speech, to be sure; even the American 1st Amendment is intended to prevent Government activity rather than private activity.

    Those are the avenues I think could be worth exploration, though:
    • First, you may recall that I was harshly punished on the Guild Wars forums for espousing conservative views on their OTF, with the mod 'above' MixedVariety secretly decreeing that I would only be allowed to post as long as I complied with her gag order (essentially converting me into a punching bag for the numerous Progressives whose behavior was equal or worse than mine). This is akin to the 'no platforming' I referred to earlier, in denying someone's ability based on their beliefs. Does the fact that it's legal make it right? Many appear to think so, purely because they aren't on the receiving end.
    • Second, I see many on both sides demanding Government intervention which I find more than disturbing. The concept that Twitter, Facebook, & Google are somehow essential services seems ludicrous to me (though I also am incensed by the fact that these megalithic corporations commanding immense power over the citizenry are still getting taxpayer support).
     
  5. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,264
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Well yes, social media, forums etc. certainly want to offer freedom of speech to some extent, else why should anybody be bothered with being active there? On the other hand, the maintainers probably want to have the masses on their side, so if somebody's point of view is unpopular, things might become a bit problematic for him.

    Regarding the Guild Wars forums, I don't know what happened and just hearing your version of the story isn't a good base for a proper adjucation, so I will just accept what you said, but not approve or disapprove of it. My guess that things got a bit personal there which might lead to unfair treatment and I think you have a certain talent at invoking that. You usually know how much would be too much, however. As said, I don't really know whether that happened, so I cannot take a side on that.
     
  6. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    It was the seal clubbing that got Merv banned. You know it's true.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  7. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    That's the thing which makes recent events far more interesting. Currently, "Unpopular" views are not at all unpopular in reality, but are viewed with disdain by the establishment. The establishment are currently Progressive Leftist, yet they are the same who normally wail like banshees when on the receiving end of similar treatment.

    It's old history & you're correct that I only saw the issue from the perspective of martyr; MV could fill you in on the behind-the-scenes maneuvering if he even remembers. I recall that the mod was 'relieved of duties', though I have no idea what her status was, if I was a final straw, or such an egregious & singular example of bad mod behavior that summary removal was warranted.

    Regardless, the only reason it's relevant was the concept of "no platforming" - that someone's speech or belief is so abhorrent that it cannot be allowed. It's echoed in your country's prohibition against the NSDAP which I've always found fascinating, not so much because I don't understand the root (hell, the U.S. essentially authored it in order to try to snuff the cult of personality remnant) but whether my observations were of actual law or of over-eager commercial compliance.

    The lunatic example I had in mind is Tamiya model company, of Japan. They produced an extensive line (probably the largest line) of military models in addition to race cars. Many of the WW2 German vehicle or aircraft decals bore a swastika, but I remember the helmets for the individual soldier figurines and a couple of 'flag' style decals had a simple red shield with white dot - no swastika. At first I thought it was just crappy production, but I found many kits of that nature which were likely intended for distribution where the product could reach Germany.
     
  8. Locohead

    Locohead Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Pretty much says it all.

    The leftist agenda is pushed by those that are actually in control of the world. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of free civilization as we know it. They own effectively all media and use it for propaganda 24/7. Most leftists themselves don't understand this, many are young, they don't understand the consequences of their ideas or how evil the people are who are actually in control.

    Thankfully we have the internet which can still allow people to see what's actually happening - though most are too asleep to care. But our free internet will definitely be taken away at some point. The incidents you mention are a step towards that goal - taking away the voice of "people we don't like" with "we" being the leftist state.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  9. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Haven't we left behind the labels of Left and Right, though?

    We see supposedly Right-wing governed "democracies" embedding themselves in with Elites and the media, in a form of softly-softly totalitarianism the relies upon censure and silencing of critics instead of the boot-heel as a means of controlling folk. Consumer choice is eroded in order to funnel wealth to a select group of multi-national corporations. Dissent is labelled "hate crime". People are being trained to be no longer self reliant but increasingly to rely upon the State - financially, morally and emotionally.

    We seem to have been abandoning true capitalism and true socialism in favour of corporatism, with an elite strata at the top and a compliant, cow-eyed population to serve it. Perhaps that is left-wing but there are right-wing elements in the mix as well. I think what we are seeing transcends both.
     
  10. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    Well, it's true that the "left v right" dichotomy is absolute BS. The imaginary 'right' is neither fascist (which was never true) nor royalist (which hasn't been valid for hundreds of years). The actual way it should be phrased is something Glenn Beck surprisingly came up with: should humans be allowed to rule themselves? The "right" are the people who think the answer is "yes" while the Left are varying degrees of "no".

    Agreed; the fact that 'good men do nothing' in the face of censorship is more of an indictment of how lazy our societies are when it comes to standing up for individual freedoms - 'bucking' the system.

    I have posted this previously, but it remains applicable.

    [​IMG]

    It's why I often prefer to use "Progressive" to infer what the modern Left espouses; there are Republican Progressives (far many more than I had believed) who may be identified by their carelessness about free markets, their desire to use Federal power to crush opponents, and their support for what is referred to as the 'Deep State' (or the Military-Industrial Complex of yesteryear).

    I think it's because establishment ('Leftist') adherents have a poisonous mix of hating Western Civilization and adoring Chinese "State Socialism" which isn't terribly different from fascism in principle.

    Got to go...
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  11. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Stole the Huxley/Orwell graphic because ... well ... damn.
     
  12. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    Yup, it's a favorite. I really ought to spend some of my meager funds & buy the book.

    Anyroad, as Locohead recognized in a roundabout way, the "no platforming" concept is pure information control. I would think that people ignoring it when directed at their peers are either complicit or asleep at the wheel.

    What fascinates me is how people who claim to be socially liberal can thread a moral needle & claim what amounts to 'for me but not for thee' with a straight face (outside pure hypocrisy, which is often on display). Part of that is the fiction regarded as 'hate speech' which is a spinoff of 'hate crime'**, but I don't know if that's the totality of the attack.

    **hate crime is generally accepted as a valid concept despite it being inherently asinine: that a crime is somehow substantially worse because the perp had a motive regarding the victim aside from or in addition to the criminal motive. Rape doesn't occur out of true love, theft doesn't occur out of gratitude, and murder doesn't occur out of affection. The only exceptions to any of this involve mental instability, but here we are...


    EDIT - here's another article about what's happening with Internet censorship. It's phrasing is a bit 'click-baity' since Facebook isn't actually shutting down every user who posts a non-Leftist message, but it's definitely happening. The only reason that Twitter isn't already doing so is that Trump Tweets are a gold mine for them.
    The Censorship of Conservatives on the Internet Is Approaching Critical Levels of Bad
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
  13. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    As far as I can tell, "hate crime" is a means of signalling to the population that acts of racism, sexism or creedism (I think I had to make up that last word) against minorities will not be tolerated by the authorities, in order to facilitate, if not a harmonious process of multi-culturalism, then at least a quiet one.

    I'm not sure but I guess that means that non-hate crimes will be tolerated. I may be wrong on that one. Smashing someone over the head with a bar stool isn't really dangerous, unless you have bias in your heart whereas in the hands of a bigot, that stool is far more lethal.

    I guess.
     
  14. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    Dunno about that. Why did the bird get to assault seriously/deadly the guy who ignored her at the bar, & didn't get jail time? If he'd been the assailant, I'd bet even money that the context could include 'hate crime' & 'mysogyny'...

    Woman spared jail when she glassed man for turning her down at bar
     
  15. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    That's not a hate crime, that's a woman scorned incident. Totally different kind of category.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  16. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    No no no, I mean if the genders had been reversed, the guy would be doing 'hard time for hate crime'.

    Kinda like how 'grooming' is totes cool for some categories of people, but if you or I did it we'd probably be looking at 20 years.

    (And No, by 'grooming' I don't mean personal hygiene.)
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  17. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Whaaa-aaa-aaaah?

    Hate Crime isn't a two-way street and the law does not get applied equally regardless of race, gender or creed?

    Give me a moment to get my head around this.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    Honestly, I thought you'd do a 'riff' off of my "grooming" lay-up. Though I suppose it's really not a subject to joke about.

    EDIT Thank goodness we have Government Officials who have instructed us what to believe is TRUE.
    What is hate crime?
    "It doesn’t always include physical violence. Someone using offensive language towards you or harassing you because of who you are, or who they think you are, is also a crime. The same goes for someone posting abusive or offensive messages about you online."
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
  19. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    9,000
    Likes Received:
    576
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Post reported. The poster attempted to make me do a "riff" against my will which in my book, is a hate crime.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  20. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    521
    I guess I'll see you in court.

     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.

Share This Page