yet still charge for their hate-mongering rag.
..in the right direction.
a goose-step in the far right direction
I genuinely believe in true freedom of speech, it's the only way as far as I'm concerned, in a sane society.
You'll be supporting John Terry when he goes to court?
I don't 'support' John Terry, but neither do I think his offensive comments should be criminalised.
how would you then balance the state's/law's responsibilty to protect the dgnity of the individual - in this case Anton, with Terry's right to abuse him? How is his speech, as an act, any different from burning crosses on his lawn? (apart from it breaching health & safety regulations)
Do you seriously want me to explain that to you?
How would I balance the State's/law's responsibility to 'protect the dignity of the individual'? You don't want much do you?! Firstly, it is not the State's responsibilty to 'protect' you against insults FFS! If you are/one is stupid enough to dishonour yourself/themselves by giving credence to someone else's bullshit, that's their affair. To start to try and legislate against insults is a slippery road that leads to State control in all aspects of your life. Is that what you want? Sticks and stones Sonic. We, as individuals, need to take responsibilty for ourselves, not ask a nanny-State to protect us like this. Stephen Fry put it very well:
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'
being a tad offended on behalf of somebody else is nothing like the effect of hate speech on the minority it is used against. It carries the weight of history behind it for one thing, burning a cross is an act which carries meaning, the same as language. Nobody is offended at the wood burning. Similarly, the victim of hate speech isn't given the same rights as the abuser "...It makes them less inclined to speak or renders their speech less effective, but it does not inhibit their legal freedom to communicate their views, in particular their right to reply to racist abuse. Hate speech does not infringe equality in the same way that a discriminatory refusal to allocate housing or provide education to members of the target group clearly does"
There is a clear difference between being offensive towards the dominant ideolody and towards the marginalised,
Firstly, John Terry calling Anton Ferdinand a 'black cunt' is in no way relative to the idea of him 'burning crosses on his lawn', what an absurd conflation.
The rest of your post is confused. We are all protected by natural law, and the role of the police is to uphold natural law. Natural law is unalienable. Under natural law, you may not hurt someone or steal their property. Everything may be handled from this basis. If you are inciting violence against someone, then that has to be dealt with by the police. But much 'hate speech' is inflated in its potency by the hysterical reaction to it. It is through open debate that we clarify truth and illuminate ignorance, not through legislation.
John Terry's "speech act" against Terry was a performative, it didn't make him suffer in a material way, just the same as burning a cross on his lawn wouldn't have impacted on him beyond messing up his garden. But the weight of historical meaning behind the acts, is comparable. Simply saying "no they aren't" doesn't change the fact.
I'm not sure the police are best placed to deal with it, but if Terry had been standing outside a school shouting it at children coming out, I'd like to think there were some recourse to stop it, assuming we're not allowed to take matters into our own hands under "natural Law".
..that's plain nonsense Sonners, and a bizarre argument if I may say so. Calling Ferdinand a 'balck cunt' does not carry a 'weight of historical meaning', that's an absurd accusation. You have no idea whether John Terry meant it as a simple perjorative and nothing more. Burning crosses on Anton Ferdinand's lawn is an act of an utterly different order and I'm amazed you're still trying to conflate them.
Equally, if John Terry were to stand outside a school shouting at children, there is of course a recourse to stop it - if the parents and other adults were not able to reason with him, he could simply be arrested for a breach of the peace. You're not making much sense here son.
As a white male toff, I'm pretty sure there isn't much that could offend him anyway, but then he does show a distinct lack of appreciation for the reality of the lives of others. I remember his argument that women obviously didn't enjoy sex as much as men because they weren't hanging around at night on Hamstead Heath looking for a shag, missing the whole power dynamic of male-female relations, not to mention the physical disadvantages of being female.
“Everywhere the crosses are burning,
sharp-shooting good-steppers around every corner,
there are snipers in the schools…
I know you don’t believe this.
You think this is nothing
but faddish exaggeration. But they
are not shooting at you.
..and does not engage with the argument. Poor, Sonners.
I didn't think I needed to join up all the dots for you. Simply repeating, no it isn't the same, doesn't add much to it either you know.
Your post is bit strange and a slight over reaction I think, BUT you do have the right to make such a comment.
Free speech for ALL I say.
is this "sane society" to which you refer?
..if I added 'towards' a sane society, would that clarify it for you?
and i think you knew that anyway
british and american society seem to be becoming more and more insane by the day.
i saw armed troops in dinghies on the thames the other morning,no doubt doing exercises in readiness for the massive terrorist threat coming from the highly militarised "al qaeda"at the olympics.missiles are being deployed on top of blocks of flats...to shoot down what?since when did "al qaeda" have an airforce?
they need only cast their eyes towards Norway and consider that lunatic's link with the EDL and its ilk,
he specialises in hijacking.
the serpentine yesterday
They did a good job on the Twin Towers Rich.
You need to be clear about the facts, not the massive illusion that was pumped out through the mainstream media about this.
You're not going to give us the "it was an inside job" nonsense, are you?
all our pilots are pissed and those Muslims don't touch the stuff.
the amount of words you've used to just say, "no it isn't" I'd have thought you'd have more respect for the power of language. In the pursuit of truth, artistic expression, human creativity, they ae wonderful things but, "speech utterances" are also perfect tools of coercion and social constraint, abuse and intimidation. Being called a black cunt while at work certainly carries the weight of British history since 1948
There's a man who drinks in the Goat pub in Hertford Heath who believes that the two aircraft involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers, were in fact silhouettes. That's when he's sober, you want to hear him when he's pissed.