Day of Freedom N/G | Vital Football

Day of Freedom N/G

valenciagill

valenciagill

Vital Football Hero

This Sunday , people will hold a rally for Free Speech in London.

Not sure on numbers expected , but it won't be featured on the BBC , or Sky etc.
There will be live streams of this event , if anyone wants too listen in to the arguments.
 
alphabet_king said:
Just seen your profile picture Valencia. For a man that complains Islam degrades women youve got a bit of a nerve to have that as a profile picture. I'm sure it's ironic, of course.
Click to expand...

My profile pic is an ironic joke! Maybe you feel offended ?
Not sure what that has to do with freedom of speech ?
 
Freedom of speech must be protected but there is a fine line between freedom of speech and people who preach hate.

There is no place for hate preaching in this world no matter what religious or political view the claim to represent.

A few more preaching love and tolerance might be nice.
 
markinkent said:
Freedom of speech must be protected but there is a fine line between freedom of speech and people who preach hate.

There is no place for hate preaching in this world no matter what religious or political view the claim to represent.
Click to expand...

The issue is how you define hate speech and who decides.

If someone stands up and encourages men to rape women, or to hunt down gay people and chuck them off a roof, or call for the burning down of religious buildings then I think even someone with more extreme views like VG would classify those as hate crimes and the law should intervene with the appropriate charge.

Those fighting for more censorship argue that if a comment could cause offense if taken in certain contexts then that should be sufficient to ban.

Those fighting for freedom of speech argue that a person should be able to freely speak without fear of censorship if their comments are taken out of context or disagreed with. For people arguing for freedom of speech it has never been about white people being allowed to shout the n-word against black people despite what Wayne and a few other people think. That is just a massive misrepresentation.
 
MedwayModernist said:
It's ironic because he described something that is clearly not ironic, as being ironic, meaning he doesn't understand what irony is... which is pretty fucking ironic!
Click to expand...

VG is upset because it rained on his wedding day and he got a free ride on his honeymoon when he had already paid. And lets not get into when he opened the wine at the reception to find black flies in the chardonnay.

Saying that, VG is making a point that a lot of you fail to grasp.

VG's avatar is clearly a joke designed to wind up people of certain sensibilities and those who don't understand this are the ones VG is laughing at. Is it a lame joke? Sure. It is a very lame trolling attempt and some of you are biting. In terms of the freedom of speech debate, I know a few people who would classify it as misogynistic and would ban such low grade humour. If he posted that on a feminist site, he'd be banned before he could say anything.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
The issue is how you define hate speech and who decides.

If someone stands up and encourages men to rape women, or to hunt down gay people and chuck them off a roof, or call for the burning down of religious buildings then I think even someone with more extreme views like VG would classify those as hate crimes and the law should intervene with the appropriate charge.

Those fighting for more censorship argue that if a comment could cause offense if taken in certain contexts then that should be sufficient to ban.

Those fighting for freedom of speech argue that a person should be able to freely speak without fear of censorship if their comments are taken out of context or disagreed with. For people arguing for freedom of speech it has never been about white people being allowed to shout the n-word against black people despite what Wayne and a few other people think. That is just a massive misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
The laws relating to free speech are well drafted and, only in extreme, cases are people prosecuted, which basically means we've probably go it right.
 
valenciagill said:

This Sunday , people will hold a rally for Free Speech in London.

Not sure on numbers expected , but it won't be featured on the BBC , or Sky etc.
There will be live streams of this event , if anyone wants too listen in to the arguments.
Click to expand...
If the event embraced all, ie left, right, religious, non-religious groups and so on, I think the rally would be supported universally. The problem is that it's organised by far right extremists, who claim they are silenced by current legislation and are not free to speak openly about race and religious hatred etc. You can be as extreme as you like as long as it's within the law. It won't be featured on the BBC etc because it's of little consequence overall - just a few nutters marching.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
I know a few people who would classify it as misogynistic and would ban such low grade humour. If he posted that on a feminist site, he'd be banned before he could say anything.
Click to expand...
But he wouldn't be breaking the law, which is the important point; by all means put a few peoples' noses out of joint verbally
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
But he wouldn't be breaking the law, which is the important point; by all means put a few peoples' noses out of joint verbally
Click to expand...

The Fawcett Society for one is campaigning for misogyny to be legally classified as a hate crime (but not misandry as that isn't a thing). Nottinghamshire police and I believe a few other forces have already set up departments to investigate complaints of misogyny as potential hate crimes.

VG's avatar might not be considered a criminal offence at the moment but in the future it could be which is why free speech campaigners are campaigning.
 
If they'd called it Chimes of Freedom, I might have taken a look. Days sounds so Paul Simony.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
The laws relating to free speech are well drafted and, only in extreme, cases are people prosecuted, which basically means we've probably go it right.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with you on that point.

The problem the pro-Free Speech campaigners have is that there are a group of people campaigning to have the law changed so that any sort of wrong think should be classified as hate crime and banned.

You only have to consider the no platforming in universities of the likes of feminist Germaine Greer or Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for being off message. It isn't the "misogynist, homophobic right wing" who are calling for them to be banned.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
I wouldn't disagree with you on that point.

The problem the pro-Free Speech campaigners have is that there are a group of people campaigning to have the law changed so that any sort of wrong think should be classified as hate crime and banned.

You only have to consider the no platforming in universities of the likes of feminist Germaine Greer or Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for being off message. It isn't the "misogynist, homophobic right wing" who are calling for them to be banned.
Click to expand...
Universities should be the bedrock of free speech and freedom of expression but niche groups are appearing who want to go beyond the law; fortunately, the Govt. is taking action to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.