EU: It's not going well, let's limit free speech

[Notanumber]

You're right - they're leagues above him because unlike Farage, the European Parliament actually does stuff.




Actually the claim for the monies was made more recently than that.




You claim they're pigs with noses in the trough but Farage and his cronies claimed expenses for doing literally nothing - and kept their bigoted party alive in the process. Why is it okay for UKIP to take money they didn't earn while claiming to be for the hard working man.

If Farage isn't a pig with his nose in the trough, why has he slunk away into the shadows before actually helping to achieve Brexit? The negotiations will undoubtedly be the hardest part and he's not doing a thing to help.

I would much rather give it to him than the Ninnocks any day.

Much better value for money!

BTW, Nigel hasn’t gone away, he working his magic on the POTUS.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a retaliation.




Censorship is the only logical response to positions like Nazism and the far right because, since these positions are inherently unreasonable, they're not willing to tolerate reasoned argument. It's exactly the position you've stated which has resulted in America's inability to rid itself of systematic racism. Allow racism, xenophobia etc into the societal mainstream and people will begin to think it's an acceptable position with as much logic behind it as the counterpoints.

No. Education and open debate are the way to combat ignorance and bigotry, not through silence and some Orwellian "thought police" approach.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I would much rather give it to him than the Ninnocks any day.

Much better value for money!

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

BTW, Nigel hasn’t gone away, he working his magic on the POTUS.

Not in any official or even useful capacity. Now that he's helped trick the English working man into beginning a long, drawn-out process which will only end with him (the working English man) being ****ed over, Farage is spending his days rimming Trump and getting high on his farts. That's speculation on my part because nobody knows what the **** he and Trump are up to. They're peas in a very twisted pod.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No. Education and open debate are the way to combat ignorance and bigotry, not through silence and some Orwellian "thought police" approach.

Again, open debate only works if both sides are inclined to use reason. Otherwise it devolves into a ****-flinging match. Look at the U.S. presidential elections. Giving Trump a platform gave him the appearance of being as credible as everyone else when he was nothing but rhetoric & sound-bites without the slightest clue as to what checks & balances are. He's embodying the very worst, most irrational prejudices into American government and giving them cabinet-level positions. Now look at what we have: an American administration that deals in alternative facts, outright narcissism and encroaching dominionism. And education does work, I agree. But it's far, far harder to educate people when you allow the other side to act as though it is has fact-based reasoned positions as well.

Do you think forbidding people from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is "some Orwellian "thought police" approach"? If you don't, why is that?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Can't believe we're still shoving our money into this system and weakening our own laws and economy by compromise to integrate into it.

In what way do you feel the EU is "weakening our own laws and economy by compromise"?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sincere question: who decides what's legit criticism and what's hate speech?

Whoever makes such decisions now, I guess? People who have studied law.

 

[suncowiam]

On the floor of the Congress, yes.

Kind of like when Warren was voted no to present her speech?

 

[suncowiam]

It's a retaliation.




Censorship is the only logical response to positions like Nazism and the far right because, since these positions are inherently unreasonable, they're not willing to tolerate reasoned argument. It's exactly the position you've stated which has resulted in America's inability to rid itself of systematic racism. Allow racism, xenophobia etc into the societal mainstream and people will begin to think it's an acceptable position with as much logic behind it as the counterpoints.

I don't support racism but I completely disagree with this. We fight racism with logic and rationality through debate and conversation.

I like to see anyone try justify a position on racism.

 

[icehorse]

Whoever makes such decisions now, I guess? People who have studied law.

hmmm... so the first problem I'd see with that is that this is a "real time" situation.

 

[suncowiam]

Again, open debate only works if both sides are inclined to use reason. Otherwise it devolves into a ****-flinging match. Look at the U.S. presidential elections. Giving Trump a platform gave him the appearance of being as credible as everyone else when he was nothing but rhetoric & sound-bites without the slightest clue as to what checks & balances are. He's embodying the very worst, most irrational prejudices into American government and giving them cabinet-level positions. Now look at what we have: an American administration that deals in alternative facts, outright narcissism and encroaching dominionism. And education does work, I agree. But it's far, far harder to educate people when you allow the other side to act as though it is has fact-based reasoned positions as well.

Do you think forbidding people from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is "some Orwellian "thought police" approach"? If you don't, why is that?

Sorry but I think you're wrong for assuming even racists can't reason.

Former white supremacists help others leave hate groups

We do have former supremacists leaving hate groups and trying to help others. How is this possible outside of education and logic?

 

[Notanumber]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.




Not in any official or even useful capacity. Now that he's helped trick the English working man into beginning a long, drawn-out process which will only end with him (the working English man) being ****ed over, Farage is spending his days rimming Trump and getting high on his farts. That's speculation on my part because nobody knows what the **** he and Trump are up to. They're peas in a very twisted pod.

They are known as the present day A-Team.

They get things done!

 

[Notanumber]

Whoever makes such decisions now, I guess? People who have studied law.

Would they be the same people that gave a million to that suicide bomber?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sorry but I think you're wrong for assuming even racists can't reason.

Former white supremacists help others leave hate groups

We do have former supremacists leaving hate groups and trying to help others. How is this possible outside of education and logic?

I think you may have misinterpreted (or alternatively I didn't explain myself as clearly as I could have): I'm saying racists take positions which inherently don't tolerate reason or dissenting opinion. If these guys are helping people leave racist groups are they still racists?

hmmm... so the first problem I'd see with that is that this is a "real time" situation.

Please elaborate.

They are known as the present day A-Team.

They get things done!

I see. So do you operate by the maxim "It's better to do something terribly than do nothing at all"?

Would they be the same people that gave a million to that suicide bomber?

Who gave a million whats to which suicide bomber?

 

[Father Heathen]

Again, open debate only works if both sides are inclined to use reason. Otherwise it devolves into a ****-flinging match.

Education and debate are far more for the benefit of those who may be influenced by the bigots than it is for the bigots themselves. It allows others to see them for what they are and to understand why bigotry is irrational and unjust. People don't learn anything from silence.

Look at the U.S. presidential elections. Giving Trump a platform gave him the appearance of being as credible as everyone else when he was nothing but rhetoric & sound-bites without the slightest clue as to what checks & balances are. He's embodying the very worst, most irrational prejudices into American government and giving them cabinet-level positions. Now look at what we have: an American administration that deals in alternative facts, outright narcissism and encroaching dominionism. And education does work, I agree. But it's far, far harder to educate people when you allow the other side to act as though it is has fact-based reasoned positions as well.

The U.S. election is a good example of what happens when a large portion of the population are inadequately educated and uninformed/misinformed.

Do you think forbidding people from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is "some Orwellian "thought police" approach"? If you don't, why is that?

False equivalence. That's inciting a panic rather than expressing an idea or opinion.

If you're comfortable "living" as a marionette, that's fine, but I would never have anyone dictate to me what I can or cannot think, feel, or say.

 

[icehorse]

Please elaborate.

Elaborating on the comment that this is a "real time" situation. As I understand the proposal, such censoring would have to occur in real time as the EU parliament is in session. So those lawyers (or whomever the experts would be), would have to be making snap judgments on what has to sometimes be very complex discussions. It's hard to imagine that going well...

 

[Notanumber]

Elaborating on the comment that this is a "real time" situation. As I understand the proposal, such censoring would have to occur in real time as the EU parliament is in session. So those lawyers (or whomever the experts would be), would have to be making snap judgments on what has to sometimes be very complex discussions. It's hard to imagine that going well...

You can bet on Nigel being at the top of their list.

 

[suncowiam]

I think you may have misinterpreted (or alternatively I didn't explain myself as clearly as I could have): I'm saying racists take positions which inherently don't tolerate reason or dissenting opinion. If these guys are helping people leave racist groups are they still racists?




Please elaborate.




I see. So do you operate by the maxim "It's better to do something terribly than do nothing at all"?




Who gave a million whats to which suicide bomber?

The next problem with censorship is that the power to censor is carried out by the controlling party. That's why we assert free speech as an inalienable right. A democracy does not always represent the best of society. This is evident with slavery and how it was abolished. If US censored civil rights activists, where would we be now.

IMO, we shouldn't fear or control any speech. Let it be voiced as a reminder that people still have to work and be active in their societies and governments.

 

[BSM1]

Kind of like when Warren was voted no to present her speech?

You're being disingenuous and totally partisan. She did present her speech and was warned multiple times to desist from impugning a fellow Congressman. She refused to stop and became a victim of the ominous "Rule 19". She knew this would happen, so game on Pocahontas.

 

[YmirGF]

You're being disingenuous and totally partisan. She did present her speech and was warned multiple times to desist from impugning a fellow Congressman. She refused to stop and became a victim of the ominous "Rule 19". She knew this would happen, so game on Pocahontas.

Exactly, Warren knew where here efforts would end up and went there anyways....
The sad fact is the Ms. King's letter was a genuine "nothing burger".

 

[suncowiam]

You're being disingenuous and totally partisan. She did present her speech and was warned multiple times to desist from impugning a fellow Congressman. She refused to stop and became a victim of the ominous "Rule 19". She knew this would happen, so game on Pocahontas.

Touche... Or maybe not.

You're being disingenuous and partisan to suggest this was a black and white issue. Here are the details:

The Senate, The Warren Rebuke & Rule 19

Rule 19 was based on a vote and was won by a 49-43 vote which could be attributed to a house majority of conservatives. My point is that this topic is subjective. It clearly did not win by a wide margin. Warren's act was not physically violent which was why rule 19 was created in the first place.

It was a speech, and on topic of censorship and the OP, I don't believe any speech should be censored regardless of its contents. So if it was a conservative delegate wanting to make speech against the left, my same logic would apply. Hence, you're wrong about my partisanship here. Not that I haven't been partisan. But please, many folks here are.

My arguments earlier in this thread defended speech even if it was about racism and bigotry. So my stance is about censorship and free speech. The point that you forgot is that you asserted this doesnt happen in the US. My response to you is an example of free speech being trumped by an ambiguous rule and it occured in the US government.

I feel, like me, you want to defend free speech but it seems like we differ on how.