Friday, January 24, 2014

Not allowed to make our minds up...

There are those out there who are determined to censor what we can hear, say or do, they range from the petty bureaucrat who misleads people over reports to the Prime Minister who approves various laws to infringe freedoms. However the biggest culprits and hypocrites are those of the left who are quite happy to have muslim hate preachers come into the country without a murmur but will stir up a lot of wrath and hot air if a speaker comes whom they do not approve of. They call it hate speech when denouncing them, though most of the hate appears to come from the left.
MORE than 12,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Government to ban this weekend's planned UK visit by a prominent far-right Hungarian politician.
Gábor Vona, is leader of the Jobbik Party - Hungary's third largest political party which has been accused of promoting anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic views.
He is due to arrive in the UK on Sunday to encourage Hungarians living in Britain to support nationalist parties such as Nick Griffin's British National Party (BNP).
A petition calling for him to be excluded will be presented to Home Secretary Theresa May this afternoon by anti-fascist group Hope not Hate.
Now whilst I agree Jobbik are not nice people and are basically the inheritors of the Nazi mantle in Hungary, I believe banning them or attempting to ban them usually ends up giving them more in the way of publicity than perhaps they warrant.
Hope not Hate of course have form in trying to get those whom they see on the 'right' (whether they are or not) banned, although they take a far softer approach on islamic hate speakers in mosques. They managed to get Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller banned, they've attempted to silence the EDL and were instrumental in assisting in the banning of Geert Wilders. Essentially they only target their own limited blinkered view of a hate speaker, one that ticks all the right boxes of the left, rather than dealing with hate speech as a whole.
However my view is that these people should be open to be heard and if necessary criticised. You can't do that if you silence them and it only makes them look good and you petty. However the leftards are very heavily into the 'no platform' style of debate where they will attempt to ban or violently silence debate which goes against their corrupt useless dogma, after all if you don't know the alternatives, you can't adopt them.
The one problem the left have with freedom of speech is that they only want people to have the freedom to hear what they have to say, no one else.

18 annotations:

Kath lissenden said...

I always see these kind of actions as double standards and hypocritical.
It is ridiculous that the left will ban far right speakers but allow Muslim hate speech.
Why should they have the whole say on who can speak and who can.

Quiet_Man said...

It's pretty hypocritical yes as Jobbik aren't saying anything about Jews that the lefts muslim pets aren't saying. I suspect it's just the pro nation (Hungary) that has them frothing at the mouth.

Rickie said...

Freedom of speech is a rare thing amongst bloggers too, there a clutch of bloggers who have decided that their blog is their home , so its their gaff their rules and freedom speech although a very sacred principle that must always be upheld doesn't actually mean them in their house....fucking cop out shite that fools nobody even the blogger themselves

Awkward questions normally get me banned, well infact awkward opinions or a request for facts to be proven..hell i could run on and on, the easiest way for blogger to bastardise freedom of speech is shout "troll", then delete , ban or whatever it takes to avoid letting freedom of speech really mean what it is.

I have disagreed with you Quiet man and you have decided to let my opinion stand....its easy to do, there is no need to silence anyone, unfortunately many bloggers have had their heads so far up their arses for years without a squeak of an opposing comment on the their blog , their egos take a bit of hit and freedom of speech goes out of the window.

Bait and see what happens said...

Equally important as freedom of speech is freedom to read, if its published online and not illegal then anyone can read it, there are NO laws which will prevent this, none, nothing, nada, im almost certain i will be speaking over the phone to ask someone to look at a website, it will be my choice, at my time of choosing.

never60 said...

in response to 'rickie'.
you say that freedom of speech should be respected by all bloggers, which would mean that anyone should have the right to post any comment on their (the blogger's) web site.
the analogy I would make is the difference between a town square and one's own home. by all means allow anyone to speak in the town square - that is freedom of speech. but in one's own home the ONLY person that has a right to say what they like is the home owner. and the blogger IS the 'home owner'. and so has the absolute right to block or bar ANYONE s/he likes (or maybe I should say: doesn't like).
if you want to exercise your free speech - get your own blog!

Rickie said...

Your blog is not your home, its not owned by you, but you do have the option to block or ban anyone for their opinion, but freedom of speech has been blocked and banned too.

I exercise my free speech on numerous blogs where they allow free speech and avoid the ones that use the cop out of my home my rules fucking stupidity to avoid free speech.

Of course the worst offenders for freedom of speech censorship are those who blog about lost freedoms, they in return get what they deserve with endless pen pal agreeing in comments with no debate, no opposing views, just butt licking fellow bloggers on their bloglists.

The truth is out there for all to see...controversial subjects like Smoking denial , that will not allow opposing views, there are none to be read, never happens, but they still bleat on about lost freedoms.

Octabber blog.. pro smoke blog with no anti smoking comments allowed, none , never, anything opposing is banned.

This is typical of several smoking blogs

never60 said...

in reply to 'rickie'.
I claim that one's blog IS one's home - you claim that it isn't.
so we don't agree and probably never will.
however, as part of your argument you say bloggers do not 'own' their blog and in response I would make this point: many people do not 'own' the home they live in - they rent it. that does not mean that it is not 'their' home. they have the same right to bar entry to their rented home as does someone that owns the freehold to the property. as such, I think my analogy was perfectly reasonable.
but as I say, we will probably never agree.

Kath lissenden said...

I have to say I do in part agree with Ricky.
If I post something on my blog and someone disagrees with me that is fine, I will let the comment stand as long as it is not a personal insult against another commenter.
If you believe in free speech then you believe in free speech whether it is in your home , the street or the pub you can't pick and choose like that, it is the pick and choose attitude that is killing the right to free speech and as adult individuals surely we should be able to agree to disagree and move on. I would far rather debate an issue than have everything be a yes.However like minded people will congregate together that's human nature surely, whether that is out here in the blogasphere or in the local pub. you wouldn't sit in a pub with someone you want to punch in the face now would you!?

never60 said...

in reply to kath lissenden.
I, in turn, partly agree with you.
I like to see all points of view freely given and published, and I haven't said otherwise. what I have said is that the blogger has the RIGHT to bar any opinions they want - not that they SHOULD, but that they had the RIGHT.
I don't, however, believe that barring someone from replying is an attack on free speech - because, as I say, the 'home owner' has the right to admit whoever they choose to admit to their 'home'. it's not as if there are not plenty to choose from, after all.
and as for sitting in a pub with someone whose face I wanted to punch - well, that would depend. if they were polite and stuck to the point at issue without shouting or ranting - if they took turns to give and receive opinions - then I could probably put up with them for a while.

Longrider said...

I pay for my hosting. Therefore I own my blog. People may come by and comment and that's fine. Plenty come by and disagree. That's fine, too. I only delete and ban when people break my very simple rules - no spamming, no flaming and no trolling. I have also kicked people off for impersonating others with the intent of undermining them and those who fill the comment box with the words "fuck" and "cunt". This is not exercising free speech; it is deliberate vandalism with the intent to disrupt. I am not obliged to tolerate it and I don't.

If you vandalise my front room, I'll send you packing. My blog is my property - you enter and comment at my discretion and the vast majority of people manage to do that perfectly well. It's just the odd cretin who needs a swift boot up the backside. Property rights override freedom of speech. This is not my opinion, it is a basic principle. A blog is not public property even though it is publicly visible. The owner has the right to allow whoever he wishes - in refusing, there is no restriction of free speech. The blogger is under no obligation to pay for a platform for someone else. You can set up your own blog if you so wish and say whatever you like. Therefore, there has been no impact on freedom to speak. I and other bloggers are not public service providers, we are private individuals and as such have no obligation to anyone.

That some of us allow idiots to vandalise and disrupt the comments is entirely up to them. Others prefer to moderate as appropriate. Each is up to the individual. I fall into the latter - although it is very rare for me to do so. Once or twice a year at the most and you will have to be very badly behaved for me to do it.

It is not a free speech issue, though, because you have no right of free speech on someone else's property.

It's a simple enough concept.

Rickie said...

Absolutely correct Longrider, the concept is simple you can expect no right of free speech on idiots like yourself who believe their internet blog is like sitting in their front room sipping tea staring at a victoria sponge cake.

The problem with that approach is "yes men" only turn up , with no debate,no opposing views and if one appears and takes the fucking liberty of expressing an unwelcome view twice or three times then the bleating starts about "directions of blogs", "trolling" " likeminded friends only", "no bullies" and the the deletions start.

Its absolutely a restriction of free speech and nothing but that, the worst cases are always the "our freedoms are being lost" brigade who happily enforce their own censorship and restrictions under a bastardised version of free speech.

I prefer real free speech blogs, this usually means that the blog host who hasn't got his head up his arse on an ego trip.

Longrider, you are exactly like the ididots i have described but you are even worse, your silly childish tantrum over "Orphans of liberty" which is a group of bloggers co hosting a blog and your leaving the group because one dared to start to post about his religous views was about as fucking childish as it gets.


Longrider said...

You really are a cretin, aren't you? I have regular comments on my place disagreeing with me, but you choose to ignore that as it doesn't fit with your little delusion. And, yes, it is mine. I pay for it and no, there is no right of free speech on private property - glad we got that one sorted out at last.

My decision to leave OoL has nothing to do with this and that you failed to grasp why says everything we need to know about you - which is that you are staggeringly ignorant and stupid. Certainly you do not understand what freedom of speech is and you have no concept of property rights.

Still, if I piss you off that's a good thing as I'm doing something right. If I ever found that you agreed with me, I would have to check myself into the local asylum.

Rickie said...

The more you bleat on about property, homes and property rights and front rooms and what you pay for the bigger prat you make yourself look.

"Property rights override freedom of speech"

You overide the principles of free speech, you restrict free speech.

Your decision to leave Ool shows everyone what you think of freedom of speech, you fucked off squealing like a child because you didn't get your own way and censor another co blog hosts views.

Freedom of speech only when it suits rights my arse.

I know what freedom of speech is and your twisted version is your own deluded fantasy fail and for all to see this, certainly does not piss me off.

Longrider freedom of speech thanks for the warning.

Longrider said...

Ah yes, the good old strawman argument again. You always resort to it when being handed your arse on a plate.

Reality doesn't fit your delusion, so you have to make up a fiction. My leaving OoL was hardly a tantrum - not even close. After all, I was one of its creators and it was entirely up to me whether I continued or not. Freedom of speech had nothing to do with it. But then, creative differences is't sexy enough, is it? Doesn't fit with what you would like reality to look like. Unlike you, others may read what has happened and realise that your version is a fantasy, because the rest of us can comprehend basic English without distorting it into some sort of parallel universe where nothing makes sense anymore..

Being staggering ignorant, you still don't get it. There is no right of freedom of speech on private property. The freedom of speech argument applies only to the state restricting what people may say, not private property owners on their own property. There has never been the right to freedom of speech on private property.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. But, then facts get in the way of your little fantasy world, don't they?

I don't think I've ever come across anyone quite so stupid as you. Well done.

Rickie said...

"Property rights override freedom of speech
The owner has the right to allow whoever he wishes - in refusing, there is no restriction of free speech
The blogger is under no obligation to pay for a platform for someone else
we are private individuals and as such have no obligation to anyone.
you have no right of free speech on someone else's property.
There has never been the right to freedom of speech on private property."

Creative, do you mean his views on religion., they were the facts , not that you could cope with someone who belived in God and posted about it amongst his many interests and views , his own blog has the biggest variety of content i have seen

Keep making those fucking soft arsed squirming statements about freedom of speech on a "blog"...yes a blog.

Most blog hosts can deal with freedom of speech in a mature way, leave views alone and move on to the next thread....what do you do?, come out with that shit as if its some kind of factual contract that you are obliged to abide by

Sorry Longrider its you who restricts freedom of speech and defends no freedom of speech on your blog, not wikipedia, or wherever you searched for defenitions of freedom of speech.

Hole dug....good job Longrider, i knew you were a pillock and so does everyone else now, cos bullshit squirms on freedom of speech fools no-one.

Longrider said...

Facts and you have never crossed paths, frankly, so we can take that little bit of foot stamping with a well deserved pinch of salt. All we have here is yet another strawman argument.

The only one coming out of this looking like a pillock is you with your incessant histrionics. I've never deleted a comment that merely disagrees with me - only those that deliberately spam or disrupt as I've made perfectly clear. The reason you get hot under the collar over this is because you set out to deliberately disrupt and I put a stop to it. Get over it and grow up.

As for OoL I was the person who started it all. When it went in a direction I felt uncomfortable with, I decided to withdraw and let it go in the direction others chose. That's what sensible people do. Choosing to withdraw is not and never has been censorship - unless you inhabit some kind of fantasy world where words no longer have their original meanings. Despite your screeching about it, there is nothing to see here. I tried something, it worked well and eventually I walked away. That was it.

As I said, you are a cretin. A sad little troll who tried it on and lost - now you whine like a jet engine complaining about your "lost" freedom of speech. It has never been lost, you can still say whatever you like. What you cannot do is come over to my place masquerading as other commenters in order to discredit them or post the word "cunt" or "fuck" repeatedly into the comment box and get away with it. This is not and never was exercising freedom of speech - it was deliberate vandalism designed to silence those who dared to express opinions you didn't like.

Your repeated rants are nothing more than veiled hypocrisy.

Rickie said...

I have never posted on your site and I never will, I notice your slanderous comments about "Rickie" on your blog and your obvious intentions as you stated to "piss me off"

That is trolling, along with your win and lose mentality and childish squealing and leaving over at Ool cos one of the many co-hosts had religious views, and your freedom of speech values Speaks volumes about you.

I will ignore your trolling and agree to disagree over freedom of speech.

Have a nice day


Longrider said...

You don't even understand the word "slander" do you? So it's not surprising that you cannot understand basic principles, given your meagre grasp of language.

As I've said - you are ignorant and stupid. Your consistent failure to comprehend basic principles repeatedly shows you up for the cretin that you are. There is nothing to disagree about the principles of freedom of speech. You simply do not understand what it means and have repeatedly shown this during your increasingly histrionic rants.

There was no childish squealing over OoL - other than in your own fevered imagination. You clearly have difficulty differentiating between reality and the fiction that resides in your head. The only childish squealing has been yours here.

You are both delusional and pathetic.