Free Speech: Is It Fine to Say Something Offensive?

I agree 100% for ALL Constitutional protections.

 

Martin Luther did try to debate in a civilized manner he was excommunicated for his trouble and sentenced to death the RC Church continuing it's long string of atrocities against those who refused to accept it's dictates.

 

Blah blah American. Dont tell me about your stupid American laws - I know them - they suck. like I said you are the odd ones out and we do not want to be like you. You cannot be as much of an SOB as long as you dont attack anyone in most civilized nations because we have laws like Australias anti-vilification laws. And by allowing hate speech a climate is created that does encourage attacks on others so your stupid 'fighting words' nonsense is nonsense. Hate speech is hate speech.

 

You have to have order. And they should have seized him as soon as he refused to recant his writings, and killed him. Look at all the trouble he caused. America for example. Nation full of so-called 'evangelicals'. And 'liberty'. And look what you people did to England. The Catholic Church should have also killed crazy Henry VIII. The 'Church of England'. What a joke.

edit - It is you liberty lovers that go against order that are the cause of violence. Look at all the violence barbarian martin luther caused. And look at your violent liberty rebellions that you 'evangelical' christians have.

Ubi nunc est illa ferocia? Ubi semper infida mobilitas? - Eumenius

Ever untrustworthy fickleness is what defines you liberty loving barbarians. You have no respect for order.

 

YOU DON"t get order by Jailing and murdering those who disagree with you, you eventually get a blood letting. Blood shed in the name of Liberty religious or otherwise is a good thing. Blood shed to crush liberty is evil incarnate.

 

If that is true, you are showing all the signs of hate speech towards the USA!

 

Of course you get order by jailing and killing those that disagree with you.

Freedom belongs to the state and to order. It is your misguided liberty loving that is evil - not order. And once you liberty lovers take power you crush the 'liberty' of the lower classes just like any other group that takes power. Look at USA - it is a virtual police state.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, I didnt think you guys would mind. But this is a pretty civilized discussion in a public forum that has rules and is moderated. I think our discussion is pretty safe.

 

Free Speech? Or degenerate culture? Post time 2015-1-13 13:32:12

Western media spent an incredible amount of time and money to promote Sonys big Christmas season film, The Interview, about a plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Despite there being no proof that North Korea hacked Sony, and the fact that North Korea offered to be part of a joint investigation into the matter, as well as North Korea saying that they can prove without a doubt that they were not responsible, our western media pushed the idea that North Korea was to blame. So we have the bizarre situation that Americans make a movie about killing the leader of North Korea and somehow it is North Korea that is the bad guy.

The Americans used the Sony hacking of the film The Interview, to push the idea that this trash Seth Rogen stoner comedy is some kind of symbol of freedom. When Sony decided not to release the film in cinemas the 'twitterverse' lit up with American movie stars like Steve Carell saying things like - "Sad day for creative expression". Who is Steve Carell? He is most famous for the line "Kelly Clarkson" in terrible American comedy, The 40 Year Old Virgin, and he was in the American rip off of unfunny British comedy series, The Office. He is a big Hollywood movie star. It is very big news what Steve Carrel thinks and writes on twitter apparently. So we get this army of American movie stars telling us, through twitter, that this stupid movie about killing Kim Jong Un is an important strike for freedom and creative expression.

We also had Obama chime in with some nonsense about America not allowing some 'Dictator' some place to tell Americans what they can and cant do. As far as I know North Korea filed a protest with the UN about the film and the fact that the US Government themselves were involved the making of this provocative movie and its dangerous plot line. That is hardly "Some Dictator somewhere" telling America what they can and cannot do. Of course North Korea will be ignored by the UN because the UN is biased and favours the west.

Western leaders, American movie stars, and western tabloid news media used the Sony hack to unfairly demonize North Korea and to push this ridiculous American talking point that to promote offensive and dangerous 'art' is a feature of a free society and western values. This is of course complete and utter nonsense. For example, in Australia we have strict laws that prevent art or media that is offensive to Aboriginal people in particular. Anything that could offend or humiliate an Aboriginal is illegal in Australia.


The American Sony hack propaganda leads in to the western propaganda that has come with the recent terror attack in France on Charlie Hedbo. The modern French are basically the Americans of Europe. LIBERTY!!! Didnt the French give the Americans their Statue of Liberty? Do the Americans realize that it is Marianne? Both societies are based on the same kind of nonsense. So now, since the France terror attack, we have France and America leading leading the promotion of this idea that the right to be offensive is to be free. Of course France and America are backed by a rabble of American sycophant leaders of other western nations as we saw in the big French march the other day.


As I said, this idea that the right to offend is part of western freedom is nonsense. If Stéphane Charbonnier was an Australian citizen and he had tried to publish one of his offensive and racist cartoons here in Australia then he would find himself in court if he was being offensive to Aboriginals. Is America saying that humiliating and offending Aboriginals is part of the American Dream? To humiliate and offend someone by attacking their faith or ethnicity or nationality is what Americans consider to be freedom? Should we Australians be fighting for the right to offend and humiliate Aboriginals? Can we offend African Americans too? How about Native Americans? If Americans are so very free to offend anyone they please then what is all this fuss over the Redskin logo? Why does the anti-Defamtion League even exist in America? Why wont any American media actually show any of these offensive and immature Charlie Hedbo cartoons? Would they ruin the talking point when people saw how offensive they actually are?

So with America leading, and France being "capital of the world", this is what the world has come to. A cartoonist that publishes cartoons that offend Catholics, non-Catholic christians, Muslims, Jews and any group that will get him attention, is a hero? A stupid Seth Rogen comedy is a strike for freedom? Was the person that made the offensive anti-Muslim youtube movie that caused riots in the Middle East a western hero that was fighting for freedom too? Was his idiotic youtube film a strike for western freedom? Has Spike Lee got things all wrong? Quentin Tarantino was right? Is America saying that white people can refer to African Americans as [SNIP]? Is that what Obama is trying to tell us? Does it have to be in context? Or can we just call black people [SNIP] because we feel like being provocative like our heros at Charlie Hedbo? So Obama thinks its good for people to call Aboriginals Abos? Humiliating Aboriginals is creative expression? Next time I see a Native American I can greet him by saying - "How Chief. You smokem the peace pipe redskin?" Is that cool now? Would that make me an American hero? A French hero?


One of my political heros is Malcolm X. Malcolm X blames anti-African propaganda and stereotypes for giving African Americans a false identity and false shame. Malcolm X talked about how those Warner Bros type cartoons depicting blacks as noble savages contributed greatly to the forming of his own identity. He blamed these types of stereotypes for the low expectations that he had for himself and the low expectations that the African American community had in general. He believed that black history was being confused and hidden on purpose, so that African Americans would think less of themselves and of their history. It seems that modern America actually agrees with what Malcolm was saying because many Warner Bros cartoons that humiliate Africans have since been banned or censored. Warner Bros cartoons like '************' and 'Jungle Jitters' have been banned because they are offensive and they are designed to humiliate African Americans. Is Obama saying that he wants these cartoons to be shown again? If he thinks that Seth Rogen and Stéphane Charbonnier are American heros then he must think that these offensive cartoons that humiliate African Americans are artistic works of creative expression. Obama must believe that '************' and 'Jungle Jitters' were strikes for American style freedom. ( are you Southerners offended by Yosemite Sam? He gets angry over nothing that guy... ) ( Do the French think that Pepe Le Pew is funny? Is it true that the French smell bad? )


Another thing that is wrong with the American talking point that to be offensive is to be free is that this idea confuses one of Americas other important issues and that is the important issue of 'bullying'. The Americans are hysterical about bullying. They seem to think the topic will help them to control the internet or something. So is Obama saying that it is fine for children to draw offensive and provocative cartoons of unpopular classmates? Or is this type of thing only ok for adults? Isnt drawing an offensive and provocative cartoon intended to hurt a form of bullying? In my opinion it is. So on one hand America wants us to obsess over the scourge of bullying but on the other they encourage media and 'artists' to bully minorities, ethnicities and faiths? Is Obama saying that he would encourage people to draw offensive cartoons of their workmates and post them about the workplace to humiliate them? Or is it only ok for 'artists' and hollywood movie stars to offend and bully the rest of us?


To be honest I do not fully agree with our Australian laws that prevent any media that is critical of Aboriginals, but I would much prefer the laws to be too strict than not strict enough. A civilized society must have standards. If citizens or politicians want to debate Aboriginal political issues it can be done without being offensive or humiliating. A civilized society should encourage civilized and honest discourse. Civilized and honest public discourse is certainly not en vogue in France or America in modern times. French and American societies are degenerate in my opinion and uncivilized. Australia is a western nation and we disagree strongly that the right to be provocative, offensive, racist, and dangerous, equals freedom. We do not believe that media that encourages civil unrest has anything to do with freedom.

And what is with this "I am Spartacus" stuff. I am Charlie Hedbo... It seems odd to me that a movement that is supposedly about freedom draws on slave propaganda to push their point. They think that they are Spartacus? Are they saying that they are free? Or that they are slaves? Do these marchers know what they are repeating? I read about the counter march that the National Front put on. Their 'hashtag' was "Sorry, but Im not Charlie". National Front protesters were saying that they were against the "anarcho-Trotsyist spirit" of Charlie Hedbo. In my opinion the National Front should have let this one go and to counter march was poor form of sorts. But I am sure that most Americans and French will fight and die for the National Fronts rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. All of this Islamic terrorism in France should make a National Front victory at the next French elections more and more likely right?


In my opinion both French and American cultures are degenerate and uncivilized. I am not French. I am not American.

[video=youtube;7hyD2yAZFwE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hyD2yAZFwE[/video]

If any.

 

This is only based on a survey of what people say their opinion is and I’m not convinced words would necessarily equate to action (or inaction as the case may be). I wonder how many of those who agreed that “people can say what they want” (regardless of where they live) would be unconditionally accepting in practice if they experienced someone saying something they found especially objectionable.

Maybe this is less about Americans being more accepting of free speech but others being more honest about where the lines are actually drawn?

 

Well IMO, I don't know if if it's 100% okay to say something offensive all the time, but regardless, I wouldn't want to silence those people from expressing their opinion.

 

The US constitution does in fact trump international law within the US.

Hate is strictly subjective and therefore all speech is hate speech to someone somewhere and therefore protected speech. Even from racist groups like the clan. Without protection for such speech there is no freedom of speech. Unpopular and disgusting speech is the only form of speech which NEEDS protection.

IF the rest of the world disagrees it simply proves American exceptionalism

 

Sorry, but I find it offensive the way you are picking on junior, especially when you live in the worlds largest penal colony!

 

No one has the right not to be offended and it violates no one's rights to speak of them in hateful ways.

The US recognizes that directly inciting someone to violence is not protected speech but that is about it and that is as it should be.

You are massively hypocritical about this. Restricting someone's speech which you subjectively label hate is a violation of that persons rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you are abusing their human rights when you arrest them.

Your laws outlawing such freedom of expression are barbaric. Hence your nations inferiority to ours.

 

Hate speech is free speech and the UN gets to decide no such thing.

The fact is hate is subjective and therefore al speech is hate speech to SOMEONE somewhere.

The fact is you are merely subjectively denying select individuals their freedoms which the only abuse of human rights in this discussion

 

It trumps it in the US does it? HA! maybe Chinese law trumps international law in China. Maybe that is why China has ignored the The Hague ruling on the South China Sea. If all domestic laws trump international law then there is no international law. Why are you Americans expecting other nations to obey international law? Why id Obama ging Philippines President Duturte crap over killing thousands of druggies without trial? How is it any of Americas business? You Americans should stop going on about human rights abuses hey. Maybe you should stop telling Russians that they have to be gay.

And blah blah. The French agree with you. And the French had their little liberty rebellion before you didnt they? You Americans are just copy cats arent you?

 

Making boycotts illegal mans forcing people to purchase or buy something they do not want.

How would you enforce that and what moral justification do you have for forcing people to buy what they do not want?

 

No, it's hate speech.

Arrest him.[/cynic]

 

Who said we expect them to?

No actually the French rebellion came after ours many of their revolutionary leaders earned their spurs here such as Lafayette before going home to help France in their revolution.

Yes you are correct international law is a joke which means nothing. True we may occasionally invoke it to justify use of military force but nations ignore it all the time and there are no cops to enforce it.

It is also morally inferior to US law as you have proven

 

England was sending prisoners to USA before you people had your little hissy fit and threw the tea into the ocean. Also by 1868, when transportation ended, fewer than 200,000 convicts had been brought in, whereas the total population was over 1,000,000. Far more free immigrants than convicts settled Australia. USA is more of a penal colony than Australia is. How many people do you Americans have locked up in prisons right now again?

Learn some Aussie history matey -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion

 

Fine with me. It's called assuming one's responsability. Why would it be otherwise? Without real free speech, dialogue is impossible. We all get a lawyers' and PR degree nowadays before we dare speak - this is ridiculous, misleading and futile.

I welcome the clash of ideas and the consequence that comes with it, like opprobe and disgust if needs be: All of these are part of a natural processus that makes evolution possible.

"Hate speech" is too much wide for interpretation - and often, those that are against it use it themselves in their cases. "Hate crimes" are in the same bag, IMO. Codswallop means of society control.

 

Seems you need to learn some US history perhaps you can give some specific examples of these criminals that Britain shipped to the US.

The colonies were nor established as a penal colony. Australia was even if your stats are accurate.

 

yes because what is offensive is highly subjective you can shut down any speech by just saying you find it offensive no matter how benign that speech might be

first amendment was given for just that purpose for protection of so called offensive speech because if we only said things that no one found offensive that every one agreed with we wouldn't need any protection to speech

 

Why has USA banned the racist WB '************' and Jungle Jitters' cartoons that were offensive to African-Americans? Was it because what Malcolm X said about how this kind of media influenced his self identity and contributed to the low expectations he had of himself and to the low expectations of African-Americans in general? Isnt that why we have Black History month now so that African American can know a history that they can be proud of rather than the stereotype that they were noble savages like they used to be presented in US media?

And what did you American arrest that guy for that made the offensive anti-Muslim youtube video that caused all those riots and the Benghazi attack for again? And why was he dressed like a mummy when he was arrested? Was that for real? (

Pretty much all superiority complexes are rooted in an underlying inferiority complex you know. You American are bourgeois gentilhomme so it does make a lot of sense doesnt it? ZING! That is some high brow humour right there.

 

Ah come on - this stuff is usually funny. It's only comedy - I wouldn't mind if they were played with my archetype (but I don't think Quebecois interest much people - maybe I'm wrong).

[video=youtube;M6fjrZ3mR-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6fjrZ3mR-A[/video]

I used to read the French comic Asterix when I was young: Such a strip would be un-thinkable today. A real shame.

 

boycotting is hypocritical in todays world
if the consumer is allowed to boycott selective businesses then why cant a business be allowed to boycott selective consumers?

If you are against the consumer being forced to buy a product then you most also be against a business being forced to sell a product

and lastly if your against the consumer being forced to buy a product then you must be against Obama care