If youre expecting me to concede my stance and crumble based on you calling me a name youre very wrong. Free speech absolutism is exactly that. I dont have to agree with anything any of you say, as far as I'm concerned you should all be allowed to come on here and look as intelligent or as stupid as possible. Regardess of topic. If you believe in the idea of meritocracy you will 1) see the best ideas best the worst ones and 2) make people grow from it.
This guy in the topic could be an absolute knuckle dragger, he isnt going to grow from there via being ostracised. This is simple.
Stop the whataboutery, it really doesn't help.The other irony that seems lost on people here is that the poster clearly has some mental health issues. He has. This again was mocked which hardly helped matters either.
Yet we are apparently - according to the majority on this forum it seems - supposed to offer tea and sympathy to a brutal murderer who slaughtered two young students and a loving father grand father
What an odd place of double standards it can be at times
He doesn't want to help. The pattern remember.Stop the whataboutery, it really doesn't help.
What I’m saying is that hate speech is a crime which is punishable in law if considered such. I do not think the CPS would in fact prosecute
I know for a fact one of the posters on this thread who seems very involved in this topic has had abusive posts removed and he’s still clearly here.
Another bastion of morality has accused me of being a child abuser and grooming young men for sexual activity while another has seen fit to say I was the abuse victim and given dolls to point to which bits of the bad man interfered with me.
I don’t think it would be considered under the law a prosecutable offence and if it is then a lot of others meet the same criteria
Stop the whataboutery, it really doesn't help.
You do realise you just gave a textbook definition of whataboutery? You can't help yourself.It’s not whataboutery is it? You can’t debate the issue I present so come up with predictable word salad and cliche speak.
You do realise I asked for one thread to be shut down by someone who is clearly a racist and still is active on here? Oddly the moral dogooders who viewed the thread I assume did not.
One poster seems to have the same anti semetic views as the national socialists yet is still offering tea and Bikkies
He doesn't want to help. The pattern remember.
If he's made horrible slurs about Jewish people just report it like whoever did with Greggs postIt’s not whataboutery is it? You can’t debate the issue I present so come up with predictable word salad and cliche speak.
You do realise I asked for one thread to be shut down by someone who is clearly a racist and still is active on here? Oddly the moral dogooders who viewed the thread I assume did not.
One poster seems to have the same anti semetic views as the national socialists yet is still offering tea and Bikkies
You do realise you just gave a textbook definition of whataboutery? You can't help yourself.
If he's made horrible slurs about Jewish people just report it like whoever did with Greggs post
I believe you mentioned this before but then realised I hadn't in actual fact liked any racist post.I believe you liked the posts?
I believe you mentioned this before but then realised I hadn't in actual fact liked any racist post.
I clearly don't consider anything I liked racist cos I don't like racism lmaoBut you liked other posts from someone who made racist comments - or don’t you consider them racist
This could be interesting,
Remember when your friend ADM had racist posts deleted? You had a hissy fit then didn't you.But you liked other posts from someone who made racist comments - or don’t you consider them racist
This could be interesting,
Firstly, you didn't ask me to explain that, bu as you have now asked the answer is quite simple, race is a protected characteristic under UK law and there are highly defined rules around what constitutes hate speech:No I haven’t. It’s not a race hate speech under UK law and I’ve asked you to explain why it’s prosecutable which it seems you can’t
The stage is yours to explain why it is
1) The opening two sentences is emotional conjecture. My opinion is free speech is absolute, and any ideas people hold should be discussed openly so that they can be eradicated intellectually, rather than brushed under the rug to fester, and manifest themselves in ways we as a society dont want (see sheff weds).so if you heard someone making racist slurs you’d simply carry on with your day and leave them be?
free speech is one thing, but allowing people to make racist or aggravating comments which are ILLEGAL is a completely different matter.
there may be a point in your post somewhere but you lost it when you decided to argue racism is ok and should be allowed - and also when you went off on a rant to other posters, made a point about somebody calling you a name and then in your next post said ‘goodbye old man’
you mention irony, you might want to look up the definition again chap
No I haven’t. It’s not a race hate speech under UK law and I’ve asked you to explain why it’s prosecutable which it seems you can’t
The stage is yours to explain why it is
Remember when your friend ADM had racist posts deleted? You had a hissy fit then didn't you.
why is it for any poster on here to explain why a post is or isn’t, to use your terminology, ‘prosecutable’…?
you seem 100% certain the post hasn’t broken the law, yet ultimately it isn’t your decision is it? which law are you referring to just out of interest?
The ones that can get you put in prison for 6 months in ScotlandWhat racist posts were they?
Give one specific example of how absolute freedom of speech would improve society1) The opening two sentences is emotional conjecture. My opinion is free speech is absolute, and any ideas people hold should be discussed openly so that they can be eradicated intellectually, rather than brushed under the rug to fester, and manifest themselves in ways we as a society dont want (see sheff weds).
2) I am aware that certain speech is illegal, you seem to think I hold institutions and the like as infallible. My point isnt that absolute free speech is legal, my point is that i think it should be.
3) See point 1.
4) I can respond to flippant remarks in kind.
5) I note you dont address his racist remarks against the white male demographic, any reason?
This whole game is a race to the bottom. If the issue is Greggs has made comments about groups as a whole in a negative connotation and that is therefore hate speech, and this forum wants to report him, by the same token Astute should also be referred. All red hot for the former yet the later seems incomprehensible. You lack consistency.
The ones that can get you put in prison for 6 months in Scotland
Give one specific example of how absolute freedom of speech would improve society
Jesus Christ. How about the ability to freely voice concerns and protest against totalitarian regimes? If you think this argument is truly about Greggs and Football i am gobsmacked.Give one specific example of how absolute freedom of speech would improve society
The ones that are against both the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.Which ones? Go on tell @covcity4life as he’s going to be disappointed
For the record I’d have banned you years ago for being an IRA sympathiser
Jesus Christ. How about the ability to freely voice concerns and protest against totalitarian regimes? If you think this argument is truly about Greggs and Football i am gobsmacked.
That's an example of a specific freedom of speech, not of absolute freedom of speech which is what you were advocating.Jesus Christ. How about the ability to freely voice concerns and protest against totalitarian regimes? If you think this argument is truly about Greggs and Football i am gobsmacked.
The precedent for institutions to punish people for speech, paves the way for that example. The argument youll raise against this is slippery slope fallacy, which is fine, it isnt enough to convince me of the alternative though.
The ones that are against both the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.
For the record I won't have banned you as it is funny to see you own yourself on a regular basis.
No it didn't.Nick Griffin on Question Time stopped the rise of the BNP
In fairness, the scope given was society, not sbtAre you? It's a football forum m8, not the house of lords.
Thankfully we never saw far-right views in mainstream politics or on BBC political shows ever againNick Griffin on Question Time stopped the rise of the BNP
No it didn't.
Yes he was against both the R=R Hatred Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.Did he commit a criminal offence David in England? Were you proud when you had that murdering scumbag Gerry Adams as your Avatar?
I believe you once on here threatened to kick my head in.
Oh Houchens Head is another who openly supports terrorism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?