" Franklin Graham Has Been Rejected by Every Venue for His UK Tour"

[ImmortalFlame]

My position on what speech should be criminalised:
Direct, credible threats of violence or property harm

Of which, hate speech is an example.

Slander/ libel
Copyright infringements

I think that's about it ...

So stop pretending you believe in freedom of speech. You don't. If you truly believed that government intervention in speech was a far greater evil than the dissemination of hate speech, you wouldn't support ANY criminalized speech.

But I certainly don't think some ideological position should b outlawed.

Neither do I.

But I do think hate speech is a direct threat that is antithetical to the existence of many people, and poses a direct threat to them, so I oppose this speech being platformed for the same reason I oppose people making threats against you and your family.

It's not the position that I think should/could be criminalized. It's the manner in which it is disseminated.

That's the basic difference between us. And why we'll never see eye to eye on this.

So the difference between us is something I never said and don't believe?

Are you happy to agree to disagree, because I'm not very open minded on my human right to free speech?

I've never contested free speech.

Apparently, you think people who believe I have no right to exist have just as much freedom to tell people to eliminate me than I have to protest that I have a right to exist. In fact, you believe they have more rights, because I'm apparently not allowed to raise similar threats to you and your family without the police being involved. Essentially, you're arguing that speech which poses a direct threat to you should be criminalized, but speech which poses a direct threat to others is fine, just because you "can't see" how the threat is direct.

You don't believe in free speech.

 

[Galateasdream]

First they must know what I think so I have a running start at least. Either position is a tad extreme and why societies often come down somewhere in the middle. So someone will be a victim of that decision. Its grahams bad luck its him this time. Theres no risk free social interaction.

Still think my POV better at preserving both human rights and safety.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Still think my POV better at preserving both human rights and safety.

Personally I like the middle way

 

[Galateasdream]

Of which, hate speech is an example.


So stop pretending you believe in freedom of speech. You don't. If you truly believed that government intervention in speech was a far greater evil than the dissemination of hate speech, you wouldn't support ANY criminalized speech.


Neither do I.

But I do think hate speech is a direct threat that is antithetical to the existence of many people, and poses a direct threat to them, so I oppose this speech being platformed for the same reason I oppose people making threats against you and your family.

It's not the position that I think should/could be criminalized. It's the manner in which it is disseminated.


So the difference between us is something I never said and don't believe?


I've never contested free speech.

Apparently, you think people who believe I have no right to exist have just as much freedom to tell people to eliminate me than I have to protest that I have a right to exist. In fact, you believe they have more rights, because I'm apparently not allowed to raise similar threats to you and your family without the police being involved. Essentially, you're arguing that speech which poses a direct threat to you should be criminalized, but speech which poses a direct threat to others is fine, just because you "can't see" how the threat is direct.

You don't believe in free speech.

At this point I think we're talking past each other. It clearly seems we aren't using a shared language - we both mean different things by terms such as 'hate speech' and 'free speech.'

Oh well.

Let's agree to disagree

 

[Galateasdream]

Personally I like the middle way

I don't.
I've witnessed the pernicious effects of this middle way. But oh well, it doesn't matter.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And you're a tyrant.

False. You've failed to provide even a single example of anything I've said to that effect.

I find that name calling isn't great for social cohesion or dealing with different opinions, though, so maybe that's why I prefer a more robust free speech environment and you want a more restrictive state oversight of what people can say. Dunno

Calling someone a hypocrite isn't name calling. It's pointing out that somebody is contradicting what they are claiming to believe. Instead of focusing on individual words and trying to tone police, perhaps deal with the actual bulk of my post and what I'm trying to say.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At this point I think we're talking past each other. It clearly seems we aren't using a shared language - we both mean different things by terms such as 'hate speech' and 'free speech.'

Oh well.

Let's agree to disagree

I'm afraid I can't agree to disagree with somebody who says that the right to tell people I have no right to exist trumps my right to exist. That's very much the point I've been making this whole time.

I can't "make peace" with an ideology that desires me to be eliminated. There is no "live and let live". I either fight them, or I die. Perhaps this doesn't matter to you, because you feel you're less likely to be the victim of their violence, but that makes you culpable.

 

[Galateasdream]

I'm afraid I can't agree to disagree with somebody who says that the right to tell people I have no right to exist trumps my right to exist. That's very much the point I've been making this whole time.

I can't "make peace" with an ideology that desires me to be eliminated.

This demonstrates why we're talking past each other.

I don't believe that the right to tell people you have no right to exist trumps your right to exist.

I do believe that the right to tell people you have no right to exist is not trumped by your desire to not have people say that.

I don't expect you to make peace with an ideology that desires you to be eliminated, but I do expect you to be at peace with an ideology that permits those with an ideology that desires your elimination to express those ideas so long as they don't call for credible, direct acts of harm.

And I cannot make peace with an ideology that wants the state to decide what ideology I can or cannot express in public under threat of state sanctioned violence.

Do you see why we don't agree?

 

[Ayjaydee]

I don't.
I've witnessed the pernicious effects of this middle way. But oh well, it doesn't matter.

I'll stick with Wilde or Petronius? " Evrything in moderation including moderation "

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This demonstrates why we're talking past each other.

I don't believe that the right to tell people you have no right to exist trumps your right to exist.

Yes you do, when you say that all ideas are equal and I have no right to oppose a view that calls for my extinction.

I do believe that the right to tell people you have no right to exist is not trumped by your desire to not have people say that.

That's a total contradiction of what you just said above.

"I don't believe your right to exist is trumped by the rights of others, I just believe they can call for your extermination and you can't do anything about it."

I don't expect you to make peace with an ideology that desires you to be eliminated, but I do expect you to be at peace with an ideology that permits those with an ideology that desires your elimination to express those ideas so long as they don't call for credible, direct acts of harm.

If you don't see how that kind of speech IS a credible, direct act of harm, then you're kidding yourself.

And I cannot make peace with an ideology that wants the state

Stop right there.

Stop talking about the state. I've not brought them up. I'm talking about individual action and hate crime, and you ALREADY BELIEVE that the state can tell people what they can and can't say. You already accept that. You just arbitrarily decided that the line lies at "making people who want to kill and harm others feel unwelcome" rather than speech which directly leads to harming and killing others.

Do you see why we don't agree?

Because you're unable to see why your attitude enables and emboldens murder and thus threatens my very existence.

 

[Galateasdream]

I'll stick with Wilde or Petronius

And I'll stick with Mill.

 

[Ayjaydee]

And I'll stick with Mill.

See you at the finish line

 

[Galateasdream]

Yes you do, when you say that all ideas are equal and I have no right to oppose a view that calls for my extinction.


That's a total contradiction of what you just said above.

"I don't believe your right to exist is trumped by the rights of others, I just believe they can call for your extermination and you can't do anything about it."


If you don't see how that kind of speech IS a credible, direct act of harm, then you're kidding yourself.


Stop right there.

Stop talking about the state. I've not brought them up. I'm talking about individual action and hate crime, and you ALREADY BELIEVE that the state can tell people what they can and can't say. You already accept that. You just arbitrarily decided that the line lies at "making people who want to kill and harm others feel unwelcome" rather than speech which directly leads to harming and killing others.


Because you're unable to see why your attitude enables and emboldens murder and thus threatens my very existence.

Again, a wonderful demonstration of how you're hearing what you read into what I'm saying, and not what I'm actually saying.

I'm interested on this point, though, 'enables and emboldens murder and thus threatens my very existence.'

Are you still thinking of Graham here? What speech are you thinking of when you say this?

 

[Galateasdream]

See you at the finish line

OK

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, a wonderful demonstration of how you're hearing what you read into what I'm saying, and not what I'm actually saying.

It's literally what you said earlier, that all ideas are equal and all should have a place.

I'm interested on this point, though, 'enables and emboldens murder and thus threatens my very existence.'

Are you still thinking of Graham here? What speech are you thinking of when you say this?

He threatens the existence of people very close to me, who I would die to protect. His ideology is absolutely antithetical to my own. Specifically, his attitude toward homosexuality.

 

[Galateasdream]

It's literally

Could you quote where I literally said "that all ideas are equal and all should have a place," because it doesn't sound like something I'd say at all.

He threatens the existence of people very close to me

Can you be more specific, please?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Could you quote where I literally said "that all ideas are equal and all should have a place," because it doesn't sound like something I'd say at all.

In response to me saying:

"You cannot sit idly by and allow such attitudes to exist unchallenged, or bend to their will to give them a place at the table."

You wrote:

Oh, but I can. It's not just their will that they have a place at the table. It's my will that all POVs are treated exactly equally and are allowed expression.

Can you be more specific, please?

He believes homosexuality is an abomination to be "repentant of", and supports conversion therapy.

 

[Galateasdream]

You wrote

That isn't 'literally' what you said I 'literally said, though. Actually, it's hugely different. Wanting all POVs treated the same (in this context) is not at all the same as me believing they are all 'equal'. At all.

He believes homosexuality is an abomination to be "repentant of", and supports conversion therapy.

Right. And I think he's very much wrong on both counts (though I actually think adults should be allowed to pursue conversion therapy if they really want). And I would happily argue with him on those things.

But a) I don't see that as exactly the same as calling for the eradication of LGBT+ folk, and b) don't see why saying such things should be considered a hate-speech crime worthy of imprisonment under threat of violence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That isn't 'literally' what you said I 'literally said, though. Actually, it's hugely different. Wanting all POVs treated the same (in this context) is not at all the same as me believing they are all 'equal'. At all.

Now you're just playing semantics. It's what you said. What's more, you said you would let them go unopposed.

Right. And I think he's very much wrong on both counts (though I actually think adults should be allowed to pursue conversion therapy if they really want). And I would happily argue with him on those things.

But a) I don't see that as exactly the same as calling for the eradication of LGBT+ folk, and b) don't see why saying such things should be considered a hate-speech crime worthy of imprisonment under threat of violence.

And this is exactly why your policing of this issue is inadequate. You seem to think it's wrong for people to decide what speech counts as hate speech, and then you go ahead and decide for yourself what constitutes hate speech. You feel you are the person who gets to determine "x constitutes a threat, but y does not", but you are not qualified to judge these things, because you fail to see how dehumanization and pushing for harmful, unscientific therapies poses a direct threat to the existence of a targeted group. If he were saying the exact same things about black people, I doubt very much you wouldn't consider his position to be heavily leaning in to advocating genocide.

And I never said he should be imprisoned. I said that they shouldn't be platformed. My issue, from the start, has been the PLATFORMING of such speech, not the criminalization of it.

 

[columbus]

Anyway, it seems his speech (promoting conversion therapy, likening gay people to living 9/11 etc) probably falls under hate speech. And therefore illegal in the UK.

Well, that's a little different.

I guess it didn't stand out to me. Where I live Graham and his ilk are quite common. He's hardly an unknown quantity. He's filled huge regional venues here a couple of times.
Tom