Even more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

[Cunt]

So Brian wants protection for open calls to violence, I gather. Fair enough.

What about a group discussing how gingers are responsible for oppressing people?

[rainbow]

[Brian Peacock]

So Brian wants protection for open calls to violence, I gather. Fair enough.

You missed the point entirely. In the example given no violence had been committed: the proposed solutions to the so-called ginger problem were just ideas - no action had taken place. You wanted an example of dangerous ideas, an example I gave because you apparently couldn't grasp or imagine a dangerous idea for yourself and because you were worried that suppressing ideas, by legal means or other means, unacceptably transgressed people's right to free expression. The example was intended to show how is may be both reasonable and necessary to prohibit certain kinds of expression and, if we're going to logically extend that, to prohibit certain groups - like the allegorical Blue Shirt Freedom Brigade - because the consequences of those ideas being given free reign are themselves dangerous. There's always going to be a debate around whether certain ideas and certain groups which coalesce around those ideas should be permitted or prohibited, and this is where laws, democratically made and maintained for the common good and administered by an independent judiciary, can come into play - balancing the rights of individuals and groups against the common good.

What about a group discussing how gingers are responsible for oppressing people?

LOL. If you're going to wander off like that then you should develop your own hypothetical and use it to demonstrate how boot-on-the-other-foot-ism can or cannot, should or should not justify reciprocal dangerous ideas.

[Cunt]

So Brian wants protection for open calls to violence, I gather. Fair enough.

You missed the point entirely.

If I keep missing your point, I'll keep trying again.

In the example given no violence had been committed: the proposed solutions to the so-called ginger problem were just ideas - no action had taken place. You wanted an example of dangerous ideas, an example I gave because you apparently couldn't grasp or imagine a dangerous idea for yourself and because you were worried that suppressing ideas, by legal means or other means, unacceptably transgressed people's right to free expression. The example was intended to show how is may be both reasonable and necessary to prohibit certain kinds of expression and, if we're going to logically extend that, to prohibit certain groups - like the allegorical Blue Shirt Freedom Brigade - because the consequences of those ideas being given free reign are themselves dangerous. There's always going to be a debate around whether certain ideas and certain groups which coalesce around those ideas should be permitted or prohibited, and this is where laws, democratically made and maintained for the common good and administered by an independent judiciary, can come into play - balancing the rights of individuals and groups against the common good.

Will your 'blue shirts' be allowed to congregate in London? How about Houston?

There is some disagreement, from one civilized, wonderful country to the next, as to whether these groups need ending, watching or if simple public ridicule is enough.

For instance, Canada jailed a kook for promoting naziism, the US just laughs at them.

Which is better? I'm honestly not sure. The US recently paid a life (or more?) when these groups clashed publicly. Canada gave up freedom of speech, and has no such deaths to count.

So you prefer the London system (unsurprising) and I prefer wondering.

What about a group discussing how gingers are responsible for oppressing people?

LOL. If you're going to wander off like that then you should develop your own hypothetical and use it to demonstrate how boot-on-the-other-foot-ism can or cannot, should or should not justify reciprocal dangerous ideas.

I'm not wandering off, or not too far.

I think I've got your approach, and show that two responsible, vote-your-favourite-idiot kinds of governments can have different solutions. Do you trust both? Neither?

I think there is a need for free speech, at least as free as can be made. For me, being able to discuss any subject is better than not being able to discuss a subject. Even if I don't like that subject.

[Brian Peacock]

So Brian wants protection for open calls to violence, I gather. Fair enough.

You missed the point entirely.

If I keep missing your point, I'll keep trying again.

In the example given no violence had been committed: the proposed solutions to the so-called ginger problem were just ideas - no action had taken place. You wanted an example of dangerous ideas, an example I gave because you apparently couldn't grasp or imagine a dangerous idea for yourself and because you were worried that suppressing ideas, by legal means or other means, unacceptably transgressed people's right to free expression. The example was intended to show how is may be both reasonable and necessary to prohibit certain kinds of expression and, if we're going to logically extend that, to prohibit certain groups - like the allegorical Blue Shirt Freedom Brigade - because the consequences of those ideas being given free reign are themselves dangerous. There's always going to be a debate around whether certain ideas and certain groups which coalesce around those ideas should be permitted or prohibited, and this is where laws, democratically made and maintained for the common good and administered by an independent judiciary, can come into play - balancing the rights of individuals and groups against the common good.

Will your 'blue shirts' be allowed to congregate in London? How about Houston?

Address the point made and show the relevance of your question and I might indulge you.

There is some disagreement, from one civilized, wonderful country to the next, as to whether these groups need ending, watching or if simple public ridicule is enough.

This is only a problem for those who think there's an absolute judgement to be arrived at independent of the facts or the context, or those who are only willing to address the matter in abstract terms while shying away from forming a judgement based on the facts or the context. Six blokes having a rant in a pub might not warrant much concern: 600 Blue Shirts congregating in public might.

For instance, Canada jailed a kook for promoting naziism, the US just laughs at them.

Which is better? I'm honestly not sure. The US recently paid a life (or more?) when these groups clashed publicly. Canada gave up freedom of speech, and has no such deaths to count.

So you prefer the London system (unsurprising) and I prefer wondering.

What about a group discussing how gingers are responsible for oppressing people?

LOL. If you're going to wander off like that then you should develop your own hypothetical and use it to demonstrate how boot-on-the-other-foot-ism can or cannot, should or should not justify reciprocal dangerous ideas.

I'm not wandering off, or not too far.

I think I've got your approach, and show that two responsible, vote-your-favourite-idiot kinds of governments can have different solutions. Do you trust both? Neither?

Do approaches fundamentally change with a government, or with the wind? Does the body of standing statutes get washed away when one or other party comes to power, only to be replaced again when the next party gets elected? Your question makes little sense because it presumes that things like laws and constitutions operate to the whim of the executive - a presumption a great many elected politicians make as well, and don't they bellyache when the law won't let them do exactly what they want eh?

I think there is a need for free speech, at least as free as can be made. For me, being able to discuss any subject is better than not being able to discuss a subject. Even if I don't like that subject.

I think free speech is essential for a functioning democracy. Every citizen should be free to criticise the government, its operation, and its policies free from interference from the state. That's what free speech is. I also think freedom of expression is fundamental to a functioning democracy as well - I just don't think freedom of expression is something that extends to a consequence-free license to say whatever you want, about whomever you want, wherever you want.

[Cunt]

Do approaches fundamentally change with a government, or with the wind? Does the body of standing statutes get washed away when one or other party comes to power, only to be replaced again when the next party gets elected? Your question makes little sense because it presumes that things like laws and constitutions operate to the whim of the executive - a presumption a great many elected politicians make as well, and don't they bellyache when the law won't let them do exactly what they want eh?

Different governments have arrived at different answers to the specific questions.

Is yours the 'right' one? Or the US version?

I was asking about what YOU wanted, as far as nannying, not what your specific province had ruled in the past.

But I think I get it. Your province is correct, and will be corrected (by you and other voters) if it is not.

At least I think that is your position.

I think there is a need for free speech, at least as free as can be made. For me, being able to discuss any subject is better than not being able to discuss a subject. Even if I don't like that subject.

I think free speech is essential for a functioning democracy. Every citizen should be free to criticise the government, its operation, and its policies free from interference from the state. That's what free speech is. I also think freedom of expression is fundamental to a functioning democracy as well - I just don't think freedom of expression is something that extends to a consequence-free license to say whatever you want, about whomever you want, wherever you want.

There were just laws passed which prohibit using the wrong pronouns. The UN Compact on Immigration makes it very uncomfortable for anyone to criticise the idea of immigration.

It looks like governments get it wrong all the time, and I would expect that (governing is complicated)

For me though, I think it is worthwhile to protect freedom of speech for people, in some context, however small. I don't know how to provide it, or where it would suit, but I have a 'cartoon' idea...

Make a new 'twitter', where everyone is allowed an account, which cannot be banned or restricted. Then, grant everyone the ability to post anonymously when they wish.

I remember reading about a special area (in ancient Rome maybe?) where people could go to 'speak freely', and while there were laws around speech elsewhere, this area was protected.

I think it is valuable to protect the ability of people to say shitty things.

[Cunt]

Back to problematic stuff...

What does that famous Judd say about the shutdown and wall?

Brandon Judd, National Border Patrol Council President

[Forty Two]

If antifa comes to town, are they the good guys fighting the bad guys, or are they the bad guys fighting the good guys?

I guess that depends on one's ideology; on whether one thinks fascists are good guys or bad guys.

Indeed, or whether one thinks communists are bad guys or good guys ,or anarchists are bad guys or good guys, or antifa is bad or good, etc.



If they come to town, may "we" use force if necessary to suppress them? Many of "we" think they are bad guys. If you say "no, Forty Two, you cannot use force if necessary to suppress the communists, anarchists and/or antifa members...." then why not? If you think "we" ought to be able to do that, why is that?

[Forty Two]

A dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.

That should be a good way to get the communists out. Let's agree on that path.

[Cunt]

I don't need protection from ideas. I wonder about anyone who does (though I haven't met anyone who admits it)

That's an interesting thought...no-one I know has ever admitted that they need protection from ideas.

Everyone who has advocated censorship, has asked that someone else do it (faceless bureaucrats) and insists it is for the good of some other person or group.

Anyone in favour of it in 'the first person'? Or is everyone in favour doing it for the good of the 'weak people'?

[Forty Two]

A dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.

Dodging the question is smart.

But I asked about YOU. If you indeed need a dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary, who will staff it?

Who is fit to protect YOU from ideas, Brian Peacock? Why not write the 'dispassionate statute' right now, so we here at ratz know what ideas to protect you from...?

I'm not dodging the question, you just didn't like/understand the answer, nor do I accept the premise that I need protecting from ideas. What I need protection against is the action of others (against "those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas"), and for that I can only rely upon that which we all rely: democratically made and maintained laws that serve the common good. No doubt you can now find some fault with that and thus we can wander further from the point - as you wish.

Ideas are not action.

You can have protection against the action of others, while those others still having the same right as you to express your ideas willingly.

Was once a very liberal idea to allow the expression of even the most extreme ideas to spur thought, debate, and understanding. You could have debates in college about slavery, abortion, drug legalization, communism, fascism, etc. -- but to have a debate, you have to be able to express different points of view, pro and con. And, to have a full knowledge of a subject area, you have to have resources to reach out to - other people, permitted to write, publish, and advocate for ideas - so that one may learn various positions.

The notion that an idea is too dangerous to be expressed, or that a vote of 51% is going to say that you cannot take the position that fascism is good, or that slavery should be legal, or that white men should be discriminated against, etc., is a pernicious one - and very conservative.

Ought atheists be permitted to put up billboards that say "your deity is a fictional creature, and if it really existed it would be a horrible monster!" I mean - 51% of Alabamans might actually vote that that constitutes a dangerous idea. Are you willing to entrust the majority with the determination of what consittutes a dangerous idea?

What if 51% of the population thought same sex marriage was a "dangerous idea" in 1985? Would it ever have been an idea which was allowed to see the light of day?

[Cunt]

Yeah, censorship is a way for pompous ass-hats to pretend they are protecting some cringing, unwashed and vulnerable people, too dense to know the difference between a good idea, and one forbidden by their betters.

[Forty Two]

I don't need protection from ideas. I wonder about anyone who does (though I haven't met anyone who admits it)

That's an interesting thought...no-one I know has ever admitted that they need protection from ideas.

Everyone who has advocated censorship, has asked that someone else do it (faceless bureaucrats) and insists it is for the good of some other person or group.

Anyone in favour of it in 'the first person'? Or is everyone in favour doing it for the good of the 'weak people'?

i gather from Brian's post that he doesn't think he needs protection from ideas either. He suggested that he needs protection from the "actions" of others. I suspect that what he's trying to say is that some dangerous ideas spur people to take violent or coercive action, and that if we silence the ideas, we reduce the amount of violent and coercive action.

If that is, indeed, what he's suggesting, then I simply disagree that the expression of dangerous ideas increases violent action. I think people who hear ideas that are truly suggestive of violence will reject those ideas. I think when ideas are suppressed, it just allows them to fester in the dark, growing moldy and bacteria laden, and then they later rise up out of the shadows.

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." - Louis Brandeis, Fmr. US Supreme Court Justice.

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. - John Milton, Aeropagitica.

I would not wish to live in a world where I could not express my honest opinions. Men who deny to others the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men. I deny the right of any man, of any number of men, of any church, of any State, to put a padlock on the lips — to make the tongue a convict. I passionately deny the right of the Herod of authority to kill the children of the brain. - Robert G. Ingersoll,

I am a believer in liberty. That is my religion — to give to every other human being every right that I claim for myself, and I grant to every other human being, not the right — because it is his right — but instead of granting I declare that it is his right, to attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer every argument that I may urge — in other words, he must have absolute freedom of speech. Robert G. Ingersoll, in an appeal to the jury in the trial of C.B. Reynolds for blasphemy (May 1887).

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Frederick Douglass, Plea for Free Speech in Boston (8 June 1880)

Anarchism says, Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that "freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license"; and they will define and define freedom out of existence. Let the guarantee of free speech be in every man's determination to use it, and we shall have no need of paper declarations.
Voltairine de Cleyre , "Anarchism & American Traditions" in Mother Earth (December 1908/January 1909)

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, Original preface to Animal Farm

Dangerous ideas.

[Brian Peacock]

If antifa comes to town, are they the good guys fighting the bad guys, or are they the bad guys fighting the good guys?

I guess that depends on one's ideology; on whether one thinks fascists are good guys or bad guys.

Indeed, or whether one thinks communists are bad guys or good guys ,or anarchists are bad guys or good guys, or antifa is bad or good, etc.



If they come to town, may "we" use force if necessary to suppress them? Many of "we" think they are bad guys. If you say "no, Forty Two, you cannot use force if necessary to suppress the communists, anarchists and/or antifa members...." then why not? If you think "we" ought to be able to do that, why is that?

You appear to think there is a definitive, absolute judgement to be made here, one that is morally righteous and secure regardless of context - this seems apparent in how you discuss this matter as if all political positions are essentially equal or equivalent.