OT: Old Mrs. May's fudge shoppe

[BigFatPie]

Comparing people to letter boxes in The Telegraph , and incitement to murder.

I never saw the connection , thanks for that piece of lateral thinking.

Read Jackal’s post above and get back to me.

[drillerpie]

JP's still a hot topic where I live and work. He's not the devil incarnate some make him out to be, but he sure can look like one I'll get in some lemon sherbets and watch that debate when I have a mo, thanks for the tip.

I think he's a really intelligent and interesting guy. I don't agree with everything he says but he's the type of guy who could tempt me to vote for the right (despite the fact he's not a politician and is not particularly right wing).

But they always tend to characters like Trump or Johnson to thoughtful eloquent people like Peterson so no decision to make.

His fans are a bit scary though.

[jackal2]

Who is naive enough to believe anyone can "eliminate risk"? The laws of different countries exist to minimize risk.






Ridiculous.

Just in case it's not clear. the "absolute" freedom of speech you're promoting includes the freedom to disseminate child ****, torture, rape and revenge ****, government, military, commercial, personal secrets, 'Fire in a crowded theatre', lies, defamation, fake news, propaganda, your address... in fact anything up to the point it's "converted into violent action".

No it doesn't.

The freedom of speech I'm promoting means you should be able to SAY what you like, but if you ACT illegally, then the law should stop you. Maybe you could quibble over my use of the word 'violent', because I'll grant you an action may be illegal without necessarily being violent, but disseminating child ****, torture, rape etc. is clearly an "action", and I'm sure we all agree it should be, and is, illegal.

I'm probably being more patient and sincere in my response than I should be, because what you're actually doing is to try to deter me (in this instance, but it could be anyone) from expressing a genuinely liberal view by deliberately misinterpreting or twisting it and using the most heinous and emotive examples you can think of to do so. Appropriately enough, this is the common "go to" tactic of those who wish to constrain free speech, but given that I believe in free speech I would still defend your right to do it.

[jackal2]

Using the free speech argument to defend a highly paid, high profile, expensively educated, privileged politician who has used his highly paid, widely read column in a national newspaper to attack a minority group who are already more at risk of abuse and attack in the street than most is about as disingenuous as you can get.

What do you think to what he actually wrote, is it a good use of a national newspaper column, do you think it breaches the Tory party’s own rules for those who represent them, and do you think Johnson should be kicked out if it did?

The right to freedom of speech, if you believe in it, should apply to everyone regardless of background. I actually think Boris Johnson is a disingenuous political opportunist and a clown to boot, so I'm not defending him as a person. This thread just happens to have been inspired by comments he made, but it could be about equally "controversial" comments from someone of another party (or no party) and a very different background. I'd still defend their right to express their view.

So to answer your questions in the second paragraph, I think what he wrote was crass and it probably isn't the best use of a national newspaper column, but I don't think the Tory Party's rules, or the country's rules and culture, should prevent him from expressing his view in his choice of words and I don't think he should be kicked out or have to apologise. If he was a minister I acknowledge that collective responsibility would come into play, but he isn't. Just leave people to read what he wrote and decide for themselves whether he's right or wrong. His own constituents will have the chance to give their verdict at some point.

[Bohinen]

I have no problem with what he says. Let's face it, religion is the cause of 90% of the world's problems and I have equal contempt for all of them. That's why I can't see Jeremy Corbyn not grovelling enough to the Jews as a big deal either. The people who take offence at everything are the real problem. It's a pity people don't stand up for JC but I would still defend Boris's right to say what he thinks.

[jackal2]

I have no problem with what he says. Let's face it, religion is the cause of 90% of the world's problems and I have equal contempt for all of them. That's why I can't see Jeremy Corbyn not grovelling enough to the Jews as a big deal either. The people who take offence at everything are the real problem. It's a pity people don't stand up for JC but I would still defend Boris's right to say what he thinks.

In today's papers there's "a leading imam" defending Boris' comments and saying he didn't go far enough, which just illustrates how this boils down to subjective opinion. The people who take offence at everything are indeed the real problem. It's a creeping agenda to stop freedom of expression, or at least enforce self-regulation, which can become far more dangerous than any dangers it purports to prevent. In some countries, criticising the Government is deemed to be offensive and illegal.

PS was it you, Bohinen, who once said I sounded like a libertarian conservative, and who recently posted that 'Test your Political Views' quiz on here? That's exactly what the test said I am, so whoever said it, fair shout!

[SolSigns]

The freedom of speech I'm promoting means you should be able to SAY what you like

For someone who likes to hear themselves pontificating at length on free speech, you should really have a better understanding of what is commonly referred to by the term.

"Absolute freedom of speech" includes disseminating imagery and all the other things I listed. Legally in the UK, and in most other countries including the US.

Are you trying to argue that anyone should be free to SAY what they like in private?

[SolSigns]

The people who take offence at everything are indeed the real problem.

Straw man. Does anyone actually do this?

[Airborn Pie]

For someone who likes to hear themselves pontificating at length on free speech, you should really have a better understanding of what is commonly referred to by the term.

"Absolute freedom of speech" includes disseminating imagery and all the other things I listed. Legally in the UK, and in most other countries including the US.

Are you trying to argue that anyone should be free to SAY what they like in private?

I'm sure that's not true, the clue is in the word 'speech'. There are articles of written pa edo fantasy that I read about at Uni that sidestep the law because they contain no images. Their perversions are legal as long as they are in the written word only and believe me, they are vile.

The law could have changed but AFAIK it hasn't?

I have no idea how Abu Hamza got away with it for so long, he was clearly inciting violence but he seemed untouchable for a whille and the sensitivities around prosecuting Muslims, still seems to hold the law back at times.

[SolSigns]

I'm sure that's not true, the clue is in the word 'speech'. There are articles of written pa edo fantasy that I read about at Uni that sidestep the law because they contain no images. Their perversions are legal as long as they are in the written word only and believe me, they are vile.

Not that Wiki is always reliable, but you could start there if you're interested:

any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech