No need, we don't disagree on much. You are ignoring my point, in favour of assuming you know what I'm on about.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:57 pmYou can now consider yourself fully informed.
If you're interested enough to respond to this post without falling to a non-sequitor then I'm sure we can have an interesting discussion, one that doesn't just focus on the behaviour of objectors but on the aims and ideals of the people they're objecting to. This is, after all, fundamental to the entire matter.
People objecting to a KKK assembly isn't a problem for me. Putting masks on and attacking the members physically IS.
I don't like the KKK, nor do I identify with them.
Maybe you should simply tell me when you think it is cool to mask up and assault people.
If it isn't, then we agree, and I don't know why you are rattling on about me being a supporter of fascism. Free speech is for everyone, not just those you agree with.
In fact, if you had ever gotten the point made by Mills, you would know that the only speech that needs protecting is unpopular speech.
One hilarious transparent tactic is for shallow-thinking assholes to create hate speech laws, then label contraversial ideas as hate speech, so that they can mask up and attack.
Have you seen what has been happening to those trying to exercise their free speech? Fire alarms being pulled, financial possibilities removed wherever possible.
Maybe this is a better question. Should a fascist living in your neighbourhood have access to water, roads, etc.? Or should they be denied all those public services because fascism is wrongspeak?
I think one of the real problems is that someone decided that speech was literal violence, so idiots can now respond to that speech with violence, and claim they are defenders.
Instead of the thugs they are.