McClean whinging again.

[rolymiller]

Politics are always involved in sport and always will be. What is interesting is that left wing or even moderate posters at.times get.far more abuse than right wing posters. Id challenge anyone on here to prove me that is wrong.

[mellowmiller]

Yes, I do agree with his actions, because I value free speech.

I have a huge admiration and respect for those people who died for our freedoms.

We live in a country where I am allowed to say that I don't believe in god, or that I don't support the monarchy.

I'm also acutely aware that many of the people that died for this country will have disagreed with me on those things.

The reality is, thanks in great part to many of those people, I do enjoy that free speech - statements which in the past I could have been given the death penalty for in this country, and still could be in others.

That's the whole point of free speech, the thing I value about it, is it applies to everyone.

I'm quite happy to be strongly disagreed with when I say these things. That's free speech too. I don't come here expressing my views and getting upset when people oppose them.

I just think it would be very sad for our country if people felt uncomfortable saying things not because people were going to disagree with them (which is fine), but rather because they knew they were going to be subjected to abuse.

So, in summary, I think those who dish out such abuse are actually doing a disservice to those who died for our freedom.

In a way, by saying what he believes, McClean is doing more to honour the sacrifice that those have made for this country than those who would gladly have opposing views to theirs subjected to so much abuse that people don't feel comfortable expressing them.

You make some valid points John2 but we don't really have free speech in this country do we?
If someone chooses to make what are considered adverse comments about certain subjects they are immediately labelled as some kind of "ist" or "phobe." They may even be accused of using "hate speech" which is a relatively new invention.
Effectively we are told what we must think about certain subjects and dissenting voices are pilloried and maybe even prosecuted.
That doesn't feel much like free speech

[John2]

You make some valid points John2 but we don't really have free speech in this country do we?
If someone chooses to make what are considered adverse comments about certain subjects they are immediately labelled as some kind of "ist" or "phobe." They may even be accused of using "hate speech" which is a relatively new invention.
Effectively we are told what we must think about certain subjects and dissenting voices are pilloried and maybe even prosecuted.
That doesn't feel much like free speech

I've noticed some people seem to think free speech means being able to say whatever they want and not having anybody disagree with them. That's daft.

If people use their free speech to say things that other people consider offensive, it is a person's free speech to say they find it offensive.

Your point is contradictory, if people are free to say things that get them labelled an "ist", how does that mean they don't have free speech?

It is legal to say things that make people think you're an "ist". It's free speech to think someone is an "ist".

Hate speech is a different matter. Hate speech is "abusive or threatening". You can disagree with someone without being abusive or threatening.

You're right it's a newer concept, and our understanding is evolving and we don't always get things right, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to recognise.

Are there any particular examples of hate speech you think people should be able to express but don't feel "free" to?

[mellowmiller]

I've noticed some people seem to think free speech means being able to say whatever they want and not having anybody disagree with them. That's daft.

If people use their free speech to say things that other people consider offensive, it is a person's free speech to say they find it offensive.

Your point is contradictory, if people are free to say things that get them labelled an "ist", how does that mean they don't have free speech?

It is legal to say things that make people think you're an "ist". It's free speech to think someone is an "ist".

Hate speech is a different matter. Hate speech is "abusive or threatening". You can disagree with someone without being abusive or threatening.

You're right it's a newer concept, and our understanding is evolving and we don't always get things right, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to recognise.

Are there any particular examples of hate speech you think people should be able to express but don't feel "free" to?

I think a few people associated with Yorkshire CCC have had their reputations ruined because they were accused of being racist but were subsequently found to have been unfairly dismissed.
I also think comments about a certain prophet would automatically be deemed "hate speech."

[ragingpup]

Who started this political thread?

Why do you have a go at me but not them?

Because that's how we roll on here.

Right wingers = start posts and say what you like on a footy message board

Left wingers that pose an alternative viewpoint to the above = this is a footy message board, stop bloody talking about politics all the time.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Shooting fish in a barrel

[ragingpup]

And then claim that they were only fishing.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

And then claim that they were only fishing.

If you look at the length of the individual replies it shows you how much ground bait has been lobbed in the pond

[ragingpup]

If you look at the length of the individual replies it shows you how much ground bait has been lobbed in the pond

I think you'll find that contributors on both sides are fully invested in the debate. However only one can put more than a couple of sentences together

[howdydoo]

I think you'll find that contributors on both sides are fully invested in the debate. However only one can put more than a couple of sentences together

Who is fishing on this thread?