Should Hate Speech be Given a Venue?

[ShivaFan]

Hate Speech Needs More Venue

Speech is under attack now at every level by obese government and their beastly bureaucratic blobs all over the world.

And these speech police are not only a threat to diversity of ideas, freedom of press, and broad participation on the digital campus where the beasts of government duress want to create a digital divide between the passive bots of their own bureaucratic power structure and the aggressive challengers to their doctrinaire dogmas of poltical correctness, these government suppressors and persecutors are the most violent of all and utilize aggression and child soldiers to physically abuse others.

They are like the Roman government persecutors of Christians.

It isn't just in the Islamic State where speech is under a stranglehold by those who are actually more full of hate and despotism than their detractors. We see this now in our Universities whose speech police are not only even more full of hate than the hate speech of their detractors, and more violent in their enforcement of speech control than the diversity of those who partake in hate speech and are victims of physical and government harassments that imprison their bodies as well as their minds or even conspire to murder them.

The hate of such government is more hateful and harmful than hate speech.

We now see the same in Europe, where legitimate protest of the Muslim invasion of Europe is attacked by the government as a criminal offensive, or where these leftist despots use the Islamists themselves to physically harass others and police free speech itself in favor of tyranny.

We see it rampant in every venue of the Democratic Party in the US that wants to outlaw and police free speech.

We are now seeing, and I encourage it personally, a counter movement of non-cooperation. We need to join and purposely propagate hate speech simply as an in-your-face protest against this agenda of tyranny as part of a vocal non-cooperation movement to counter the PC political police.

We are seeing the birth of this non-cooperation, who refuse to cooperate with this PC tyranny and who exercise hate speech simply as a statement of support for free speech.

We need more swastikas now, not less, simply as part of a counter-statement to PC dictatorship considering this threat by the political police to freedom of the mind and speech. We need more hate speech, not less. More waving of the confederate flag as part non-cooperation to tyrants and a statement of free speech. More aggressive speech in the name of free speech.

We need to give hate speech a venue in the name of freedom from government goons who are more full of hate for anyone who challenges their power than the most vile chapters of the KKK.

This poll was placed in the General Debates section ("non-religious") but really impacts religion too, where religious speech is under atrack as well.

What do you think?

 

[dust1n]

Have a particular court case in mind?

 

[Quintessence]

What is it that you hope to accomplish with vile and toxic speech?

Seems to me such an endeavor is the equivalent to taking sewage slurry and spraying it about where it does nothing but stink up the place and create a health hazard.

 

[Augustus]

Depends what you mean by hate speech. Speech that advocates violence against certain groups can rightly be curtailed.

There is, however, too much attempt in some places to limit public speakers who spread opinions not considered PC. Universities, for example, should encourage debate even around controversial topics rather than limit acceptable opinions around a narrow consensus.

With controversial speakers, I think it is acceptable for venues to insist that they debate someone with an opposing opinion if they are to be allowed to speak. This is part of a healthy democracy and respects the rights of the owners of the venues as well as free speech.

I find people like Pamela Geller and Ann Coulter to be repulsive bigots, but don't agree with banning them from public venues. If people want to demonstrate against them then that is fine, but this should be limited to outside the venue rather than trying to disrupt events to the extent that they must be cancelled.

If you think somebody else's views are so obviously wrong then you should have no problem attacking their ideas rather than trying to silence them.

 

[ShivaFan]

Take the swastika thing.

The other day I was listening to a right-wing AM radio talk and dial-in show. On the program, I learned that one of the recent swatika events was actually a fake.

The tyrannts are now defining what is "hate speech". Saying you don't support sharia-law loving homophobe and child molestor Islamic invaders who want to suppress women and mostly male Muslims of military age not from Syria to illegally invade one's country in hordes - they want to say that having a reasonable opinion and expressing this is "hate speech".

It is speech control, no different than the ISIS state itself.

So, these invaders will get around to officially raising the Nazi socialist flag, it is only a matter of time and numbers.

But in the meantime, you have the fake swastika events. Why? Because the tyrannts want to incite a phony opportunity to take away even more of our free speech. They themselves are the swastika of political correctness and hate free speech.

So how to counter this?

The answer is, get over the swastika. It should not be allowed to become a tool to enforce an agenda by the PC police to take away freedom and enforce their own form of Nazism.

A swastika? Ok - get over it. Most of these are fake, those that are real are rare. In fact, purposely put up more swastikas on your facebook in the name of free speech. As part of non-cooperation with tyranny.

It's like the black church burning b.s.. Time and again, when it comes down to the final months before a critical Prrsidential election, Democratic operatives working with some black preacher purposely set a small fire at the door or on the church, the preacher tries to collect the insurance as part of the scam. You find out after the election.

So we will see it again, very soon. The scam of black churches burning, set on fire by the Hillary extremists who hate freedom.

Don't let them have the arsenal to suppress free speech. Before those who would actually fly that flag for real take over.

 

[Mister Emu]

Public(government owned/ran) venues should be open to any speech that isn't illegal. Private venues have discretion to choose which speech they endorse or deny.

 

[Lyndon]

What is this, the Nazi channel, change the channel!!

 

[dust1n]

Take the swastika thing.

The other day I was listening to a right-wing AM radio talk and dial-in show. On the program, I learned that one of the recent swatika events was actually a fake.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._the_feces_swastika_at_mizzou_was_a_hoax.html

The tyrannts are now defining what is "hate speech". Saying you don't support sharia-law loving homophobe and child molestor Islamic invaders who want to suppress women and mostly male Muslims of military age not from Syria to illegally invade one's country in hordes - they want to say that having a reasonable opinion and expressing this is "hate speech".

It is speech control, no different than the ISIS state itself.

Yup.

So, these invaders will get around to officially raising the Nazi socialist flag, it is only a matter of time and numbers.

But in the meantime, you have the fake swastika events. Why? Because the tyrannts want to incite a phony opportunity to take away even more of our free speech. They themselves are the swastika of political correctness and hate free speech.

Yup.

So how to counter this?

The answer is, get over the swastika. It should not be allowed to become a tool to enforce an agenda by the PC police to take away freedom and enforce their own form of Nazism.

A swastika? Ok - get over it. Most of these are fake, those that are real are rare. In fact, purposely put up more swastikas on your facebook in the name of free speech. As part of non-cooperation with tyranny.

Please do.

It's like the black church burning b.s.. Time and again, when it comes down to the final months before a critical Prrsidential election, Democratic operatives working with some black preacher purposely set a small fire at the door or on the church, the preacher tries to collect the insurance as part of the scam. You find out after the election.

So we will see it again, very soon. The scam of black churches burning, set on fire by the Hillary extremists who hate freedom.

Don't let them have the arsenal to suppress free speech. Before those who would actually fly that flag for real take over.

Um, I'm aware that no church burning thing panned out as being related, as apparently, setting fire to churches is just a generally common occurrence. But the idea that Democratic operatives, with no names of course, colluded with some preacher to set a fire to both win an election, as if that would even work, and also collect insurance money via fraud... now that is great.

 

[ShivaFan]

Fake swastika incidents does not mean the swastika display never happened, it means those who put up the swastika were not Nazis but in fact, for example, black extremists who want to start a race war or leftists who want to forward a false news narrative to promote their anti-free speech agenda and their own form of despotic government control of free ideas.

The fakery has to do with who did it and why.

No, the radio host was not talking about the so-called "poop swastika", a small swastika drawn with feces on some campus.

I don't care. Nor do I know who did it. It is absurd to over-react to this. Maybe some black student did this to foment or re-enforce some phony agenda. Fakery.

Or maybe a Nazi sympathizer did it - NOT "Euro" white person, but some Jew hating campus Islamic extremist welcomed into the school and worshipped by leftist school admins as part of the hate Israel agenda. Or some Islamic sympathizer who also hates Jews. After all, we see the Islamic extremists holding up "God Bless Hitler" signs and waving swastikas.

Or maybe is was an anti-Nazi statement. After all, poop was used. Could have been someone saying Nazis are sh**.

No matter what, the only narrative from the old-school media which is in panic as they lose power will be the leftist narrative which is a pack of lies designed to restrict free speech and put a straight-jacket on freedom of the press itself in the name of destroying all who are not them.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Depends what you mean by hate speech. Speech that advocates violence against certain groups can rightly be curtailed.

There is, however, too much attempt in some places to limit public speakers who spread opinions not considered PC. Universities, for example, should encourage debate even around controversial topics rather than limit acceptable opinions around a narrow consensus.

With controversial speakers, I think it is acceptable for venues to insist that they debate someone with an opposing opinion if they are to be allowed to speak. This is part of a healthy democracy and respects the rights of the owners of the venues as well as free speech.

I find people like Pamela Geller and Ann Coulter to be repulsive bigots, but don't agree with banning them from public venues. If people want to demonstrate against them then that is fine, but this should be limited to outside the venue rather than trying to disrupt events to the extent that they must be cancelled.

If you think somebody else's views are so obviously wrong then you should have no problem attacking their ideas rather than trying to silence them.

Agreed. You have to define hate speech first. What do you mean by public venues? People hosting them on campus? Or them doing like street preachers? If it's campus you have to be invited first. If it's on the street that's different.

Universities don't HAVE to invite you. Especially if you don't go along with the school and what they're trying to do with academia and the environment.

 

[columbus]

What is it that you hope to accomplish with vile and toxic speech?

This is the "Information Age". YouTube, blogs, everyone is a journalist, and I can get news from AlJazeera, WaPo, the Bombay Times, Fox, and BBC. All in five minutes for free.

I say, "Bring it on!". Let the haters have equal access to the media so their crap is right out there in front of God and everyone.
Not so long ago, the Westboro Baptist Church could spew their hate in a small restricted place and get away with it. Now, it's in the public domain and they have made the losership of conservative Christian morality obvious to millions of people and they are not very important any more.

Oh yeah. Give the microphone to the people.
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

Fake swastika incidents does not mean the swastika display never happened, it means those who put up the swastika were not Nazis but in fact, for example, black extremists who want to start a race war or leftists who want to forward a false news narrative to promote their anti-free speech agenda and their own form of despotic government control of free ideas.

The fakery has to do with who did it and why.

No, the radio host was not talking about the so-called "poop swastika", a small swastika drawn with feces on some campus.

I don't care. Nor do I know who did it. It is absurd to over-react to this. Maybe some black student did this to foment or re-enforce some phony agenda. Fakery.

Or maybe a Nazi sympathizer did it - NOT "Euro" white person, but some Jew hating campus Islamic extremist welcomed into the school and worshipped by leftist school admins as part of the hate Israel agenda. Or some Islamic sympathizer who also hates Jews. After all, we see the Islamic extremists holding up "God Bless Hitler" signs and waving swastikas.

Or maybe is was an anti-Nazi statement. After all, poop was used. Could have been someone saying Nazis are sh**.

And there are rules against speech. For ex you can't incite a riot, hate speech isn't protected, you can't do libel, slander, slander per se. On public air waves you can't curse.

No matter what, the only narrative from the old-school media which is in panic as they lose power will be the leftist narrative which is a pack of lies designed to restrict free speech and put a straight-jacket on freedom of the press itself in the name of destroying all who are not them.

That was done on Missouri. And from what I understand about history is when black family's were moving into white neighborhoods back in the day white people would break in and smear crap on their walls. That could be where it comes from.

If someone was saying Nazi's are **** why would they draw a swastika? Wouldn't they draw it in a circle with it slashed in the middle?

This is the "Information Age". YouTube, blogs, everyone is a journalist, and I can get news from AlJazeera, WaPo, the Bombay Times, Fox, and BBC. All in five minutes for free.

I say, "Bring it on!". Let the haters have equal access to the media so their crap is right out there in front of God and everyone.
Not so long ago, the Westboro Baptist Church could spew their hate in a small restricted place and get away with it. Now, it's in the public domain and they have made the losership of conservative Christian morality obvious to millions of people and they are not very important any more.

Oh yeah. Give the microphone to the people.
Tom

I'm starting to think more along these lines. I'd rather have it out there and exposed and we as a society can finally address it. Don't hide it and be in "polite company." That's how we got here imo. Hiding things and denying doesn't help us a society decide what we want to be. Everything has to be exposed and we have to really talk about it and address it as a society or we're never going to get passed it and move on if we're hiding things and/or in denial etc. So I agree with you.

 

[columbus]

Everything has to be exposed and we have to really talk about it and address it as a society or we're never going to get passed it and move on if we're hiding things and/or in denial etc. So I agree with you.

This is why Melissa Click got hit so hard. She thought she was entitled to do things like squelch the press. It doesn't matter why she felt so privileged, what this is all about is the world telling her:
" Check your Privilege"
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

This is why Melissa Click got hit so hard. She thought she was entitled to do things like squelch the press. It doesn't matter why she felt so privileged, what this is all about is the world telling her:
" Check your Privilege"
Tom

Except if you watch the video there are plenty of press there. Including other students with hand phones filming and she didn't bother them. Huh. Imagine that.

The guy wasn't "the press." He was filming on his own documenting. When he was asked by her and another student if he was with the press he said "I'm documenting." So no he wasn't with the press. And the student journalist she wasn't involved in that.

 

[columbus]

Except if you watch the video

I can't watch video on my phone.
But if she thought she had the privilege of saying to a student "You are not allowed on school property because I say so" the answer remains:
Check Your Privilege
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

I can't watch video on my phone.
But if she thought she had the privilege of saying to a student "You are not allowed on school property because I say so" the answer remains:
Check Your Privilege
Tom

Lol no that's not what she said. They were talking about that area where they had tents where people were staying. There were other journalists there even interviewing faculty and staff a like. She was talking about that particular space with their tents where they were set up for the whole week. Not the grounds period. Everyone was invited on there. They were even going to have a victory party later in the evening open to everyone.

They had a certain part of the area of the grounds on which they took over for the week of protesting and where people had tents and were staying. That's where you saw her and another student ask him if he was with the media. They didn't want media in the area where they had their set up and where people were staying.

Even in the guy's video you can see other people with hand phones and professional cameras filming and nobody is bothering them. It only became an altercation when he got too close to the tents and earlier when the student journalist was in people's faces taking pictures and not respecting their right to privacy which, by law, is the right to be left alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hate Speech Needs More Venue

Speech is under attack now at every level by obese government and their beastly bureaucratic blobs all over the world.

And these speech police are not only a threat to diversity of ideas, freedom of press, and broad participation on the digital campus where the beasts of government duress want to create a digital divide between the passive bots of their own bureaucratic power structure and the aggressive challengers to their doctrinaire dogmas of poltical correctness, these government suppressors and persecutors are the most violent of all and utilize aggression and child soldiers to physically abuse others.

They are like the Roman government persecutors of Christians.

It isn't just in the Islamic State where speech is under a stranglehold by those who are actually more full of hate and despotism than their detractors. We see this now in our Universities whose speech police are not only even more full of hate than the hate speech of their detractors, and more violent in their enforcement of speech control than the diversity of those who partake in hate speech and are victims of physical and government harassments that imprison their bodies as well as their minds or even conspire to murder them.

The hate of such government is more hateful and harmful than hate speech.

We now see the same in Europe, where legitimate protest of the Muslim invasion of Europe is attacked by the government as a criminal offensive, or where these leftist despots use the Islamists themselves to physically harass others and police free speech itself in favor of tyranny.

We see it rampant in every venue of the Democratic Party in the US that wants to outlaw and police free speech.

We are now seeing, and I encourage it personally, a counter movement of non-cooperation. We need to join and purposely propagate hate speech simply as an in-your-face protest against this agenda of tyranny as part of a vocal non-cooperation movement to counter the PC political police.

We are seeing the birth of this non-cooperation, who refuse to cooperate with this PC tyranny and who exercise hate speech simply as a statement of support for free speech.

We need more swastikas now, not less, simply as part of a counter-statement to PC dictatorship considering this threat by the political police to freedom of the mind and speech. We need more hate speech, not less. More waving of the confederate flag as part non-cooperation to tyrants and a statement of free speech. More aggressive speech in the name of free speech.

We need to give hate speech a venue in the name of freedom from government goons who are more full of hate for anyone who challenges their power than the most vile chapters of the KKK.

This poll was placed in the General Debates section ("non-religious") but really impacts religion too, where religious speech is under atrack as well.

What do you think?

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that when you talk about "giving hate speech a venue", you're really talking about creating a venue where the critics of hate speech are silenced.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak unopposed". People who want to criticize you or your ideas have freedom of speech, too.

 

[columbus]

They were talking about that area where they had tents where people were staying.

Was that school property?
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

Was that school property?
Tom

The tents were their private property.

 

[dust1n]

Fake swastika incidents does not mean the swastika display never happened, it means those who put up the swastika were not Nazis but in fact, for example, black extremists who want to start a race war or leftists who want to forward a false news narrative to promote their anti-free speech agenda and their own form of despotic government control of free ideas.

The fakery has to do with who did it and why.

Ah, I missed the nature of the narrative regarding your made-up, claims lacking any evidence...

Now I'll if you'll excuse me I need to go smear my **** into the shape of Goebbels face so I can get some hate laws passed.

No, the radio host was not talking about the so-called "poop swastika", a small swastika drawn with feces on some campus.

I don't care. Nor do I know who did it. It is absurd to over-react to this. Maybe some black student did this to foment or re-enforce some phony agenda. Fakery.

Or maybe a Nazi sympathizer did it - NOT "Euro" white person, but some Jew hating campus Islamic extremist welcomed into the school and worshipped by leftist school admins as part of the hate Israel agenda. Or some Islamic sympathizer who also hates Jews. After all, we see the Islamic extremists holding up "God Bless Hitler" signs and waving swastikas.

Or maybe is was an anti-Nazi statement. After all, poop was used. Could have been someone saying Nazis are sh**.

No matter what, the only narrative from the old-school media which is in panic as they lose power will be the leftist narrative which is a pack of lies designed to restrict free speech and put a straight-jacket on freedom of the press itself in the name of destroying all who are not them.

The amount of irony loaded into making the claim there are democratic operatives using black activists to plant swastikas for the purposes of getting hate speech laws passed, and complaining about old-school media, because you heard this over-the-top, terrified-of-leftists, on an AM Radio channel of all things, is too much to unpack...