McClean whinging again.

[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?

[ragingpup]

Who is fishing on this thread?

John and Kerr are. Commie sh1tes. Never talk about footy either. Ban em Cam

[KerrAvon]

Who is fishing on this thread?

In fairness, I did a bit of fishing.

I don't know why I bothered though. The usual suspect jumps into my keepnet without the need for bait or tackle.

I got into this thread by asking a question about a post that interested me. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's what this board should be about.

[howdydoo]

In fairness, I did a bit of fishing.

I don't know why I bothered though. The usual suspect jumps into my keepnet without the need for bait or tackle.

I got into this thread by asking a question about a post that interested me. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's what this board should be about.

Let's face it, the bait had already been laid. It's the usual superior attitude and overbearing approach aimed at demeaning other people.

I happen to agree that McClean should be free to express his views. Not totally convinced by his motives or that he's totally innocent of bringing some of the abuse on himself. The balaclava picture being an example.

What I will I say about him is that he's a horrible footballer. Fully 'committed' sometimes to the point of wanting to harm fellow players. He's not for me.