Reply With QuoteHe's a weirdo. Won't go to jail though.
I like this dug...
Hall Of Fame
Would you jail him or not?
Boy seems like a bit of a weapon. I’m comfortable he can spend some time there without my civil liberties being infringed
Hall Of Fame
He's a weirdo. Won't go to jail though.
I like this dug...
Hall Of Fame
No, offending snowflakes is not a crime.
Hall Of Fame
Originally Posted by Jupiter
I know, I seem to do it a lot on the football board. This bell end has done something slightly different. Seems to be enjoying himself though
Hall Of Fame
Pretty worrying that most people these days are only too happy to criminalise being a c*nt. What happens when someone decides that you're too much of a c*nt and decides to bring the force of the law against you?
You either have freedom of speech or you don't. It's as simple as that. The only caveat which isn't incompatible with right to free speech is speech which threatens or incites violence - the reason being that you're moving from the realm of speech into action. You can GTF with "Hate Speech" - a disturbingly Orwellian term. Effectively new blasphemy laws.
The reason free speech is important is exactly because it's very natural for humans to try to silence opposing views. It's easy to be flippant about this guy but ultimately he has caused no physical harm to anyone. I'm very wary of criminalising speech especially these days when you have social justice nut jobs advancing concepts such as 'microaggression' (a concept designed to draw an equivalence between saying something a bit obnoxious or ignorant with actual physical violence).
It's also not really a Right/Left issue. Any ideological system will try to silence dissent, whether Fascism or Communism, because they rely on society wide adoption of the foundational narrative of the system. The inclination to silence speech will therefore simply lean in the direction that society is headed culturally as it tries to establish new norms.
Last edited by ragnarok; 28-03-2018 at 11:05 PM.
Hall Of Fame
I don’t think this is really a freedom of speech issue. It’s more about him being a d1ck. It’s still possible to tell offensive jokes without ending up in front of a judge.
Hall Of Fame
Is he a d!ck? probably. Was it funny? Good lord no. Does he pose for photo opps with dubious characters? Unquestionably. Should he have gone to jail solely on this act and not contempt of court? No in my opinion as the context is important. He sets it up as a joke at the start of the video “My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Naz!.” Again not funny but at least you can see the attempt. Big leap to say this was ruse to incite others and spread hatred.
Whereas criminalising the use of the words 'snowflakes' and 'Social Justice Warriors' on the other hand...
Hall Of Fame
Personally it doesnt put me up or down what people say or do. However, I can see why people find it offensive though and why the judge has ruled it as offensive. Jail though? nah, but if he is going to publicly do something like that then there are likely to be repercussions. My guess is he is just a thick c*nt who probably doesnt even know what he is saying.
Its not even a case of going against freedom of speech, its more to do with setting an example of this guy. You can be a c*nt and believe in what you like behind closed doors IMO, but when you start trying to be Archie on public sites like Youtube or Facebook, thats where i draw the line and the likelihood for punishment comes in. Like i say, it doesnt offend me, but i can see why it does offend some people. Most folk like this know it will cause a reaction and its why they do it. I wouldnt say he is trying to breed hatred, but is rather showing himself up for being a complete walloper.
Hall Of Fame
Well, I haven't the foggiest idea what you're all on about but freedom of speech is an illusion nowadays.
Mass self hypnosis is the name of the game and be very afraid of bucking the trend.
The phrase "hate crime" is an appalling misuse of our language and means nothing at all.
I'm afraid the " ministry of truth" is firing away with both barrels just now.
Of course, having read your posts I'm getting some sort of incline of the story.
Sounds a bit like what would have been broadcast on national TV by Esther Ranzen.
" and now, after the Nazi dog we have a carrot that looks like a cock"
Last edited by donsdaft; 29-03-2018 at 08:27 PM.
Hall Of Fame
You’re conflating social consequences with legal consequences...which is a very dangerous thing to do. In fact these things are in direct opposition to each other - it’s exactly because of the social consequences of certain types of speech that freedom of speech should be legally protected. The two are often conflated in the other direction too - folk think that freedom of speech should mean that they shouldn’t suffer any social consequences for their speech which is obviously not true.
Christopher Hitchens (who I’m ambivalent about) gave an excellent talk on freedom of speech a few years before he died. He’d spent some time with David Irving having admired his early work and reached the conclusion that he was a bit of a fruit loop. But he made the argument that even if a single person expressed views that every other member of society found abhorrent that was all the more reason to legally protect that individual’s speech.
Posting Permissions