PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[TurboHatchback]

There seems to be a growing trend recently towards the censorship of expressed views and declaring that any opinion which doesn't match a very narrow prescribed 'correct ' world view as immoral/unacceptable/somethingist and discarding it. Apparently it's now acceptable to eschew debate completely and simply accuse someone of an 'ism' (whether it's even relevant or not) to just shut their input down or marginalise them. We regularly see public figures sacked/expelled/resigning for expressing opinions that are held by large swathes of the population but do not meet the party/BBC PC line. This means that these issues never get the chance to make it to a proper democratic test thus artificially limiting our democratic choices.

This trend is becoming increasingly enshrined in law by the various 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' offences. I find this rather worrying, it's a slippery slope towards making disagreement with the government illegal. That of course filters down into society, for example there are views that are disallowed on this site because they might expose the publishers to legal risks. Outlawing opinions will not change them, it only fosters resentment and likely strengthens those opinions, only reasoned debate can shape opinion.

Be it Islam, immigration, transactivism, 'equality', the EU, travellers, politics or a whole raft of issues, I believe that people should be allowed and encouraged to express their views. The right to do so is in fact a cornerstone of successful democracy, I believe that this trend is why there have been some highly 'unexpected' election results recently (both recent general elections and Brexit), people could not express their actual views safely but when put to secret ballot they could do so.

It's all related to this idea that we can't offend anyone, if we could discard this notion it would benefit society greatly IMO. Developing a thicker skin and some debating skills rather than lobbying for any opinion not your own to be banned would do wonders for everybody and society at large.

Opinions?

[TurboHatchback]

To be clear this wasn't intended to be a discussion on the moderation of this site, that was merely an example to indicate where such moderation trends might originate from (protecting the company from prosecution for publishing 'disallowed' statements).

Spanna said:

Outside of universities there is no place to properly share your own free speech as it's all privately owned businesses that may do as they wish. They may turn off your account if they don't like it.

The problem now is even universities will shut down those with an unlikeable view point if pressured enough. Activist groups have wised up to it, they only need to mildly suggest a riot and the uni will shut it down on safety concerns.

Very true, universities are becoming one of the least free spaces for debate there is. Debate is encouraged but only when you agree with the predefined agenda (so more of a circle jerk than a debate), the very antithesis of how things should be.

Einion Yrth said:

Ali G said:

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

Freedom is indivisible; if there are any limits on speech it is no longer free; you may agree with such limitations, that's fine, but it also means that, by definition, speech is not free,

True. Personally I believe the only limitations should be libel/slander (stating damaging factual falsehoods) and direct incitement to violence. To take the Islam topic as an example, I think people should have the right to stand on the street and call for sharia law, I think they should be allowed to declare that western life is decadent and immoral and they should also be allowed to declare Islam incompatible with our society and for all Muslims to be deported. The vast majority of the public will be well between either of these views but currently one is 'unacceptable' and will get you arrested and the other will not which is wrong IMO regardless of where you stand on the issue.

I also believe that discrimination based on beliefs and opinions should not be allowed where it does not directly concern someones role (for example the google employee recently fired for writing his opinions on gender and technical workers).

Colonial said:

Free speech doesn't mean it is free from consequences. Or free from others criticising it.

It does seem like some of the proponents of "it's political correctness gone mad" just want their opinions, and only their opinions, heard.

I want no such thing, people should absolutely be free to criticise my views and vice versa. The problem with defining which opinions are and are not allowed is who has the right to determine this? Take an issue, for example gay equal rights. On this one I am almost entirely with the 'allowed' opinion but who gets to decide what that is? If >50% of the population became of the opinion that gay equality shouldn't be allowed then democratically that should become law, as it stands that wouldn't happen because expressing the opinion would be disallowed and anyone expressing it would be sacked and arrested for 'homophobic hate crime'. I think that if you disagree with gay equal rights you should have the right to publicly express this and I should be allowed to publicly and politely disagree with you.

To pick a slightly darker counterpoint, if the 'allowed' agenda was that Jews should be persecuted and you risked losing your job, arrest and imprisonment for disagreeing regardless of the majority opinion of the public, the historical precedent suggests that leads nowhere good. Relying on the benevolence of our overlords is a dangerous thing, I would rather the collective majority will of the people whether that agrees with me or not.

bhstewie said:

We have freedom of speech, being able to hop onto a computer and post and comment on this thread is testament to that.

Try doing that in China or North Korea or closer to home Turkey or Russia.

It's more about actions having consequences i.e. the recent Sarah Champion article, freedom of speech to post it, but where the consequences of her actions fair and proportionate?

Personally I don't think they were, but the freedom of speech was there to allow her to do so.

Unfortunately that's not entirely true, I could right now post something that would get me arrested should someone complain to the police, it wouldn't even need to incite violence or anything. That shouldn't be the case IMO.

[TurboHatchback]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

Indeed, this thread is not the place for arguing about specific issues but rather the way the debate is handled.

I agree that the extremist Islam lot should be able to preach their stuff, everything apart from explicitly inciting violence (which I admit cuts out quite a lot of their material). That way people can listen and see what they are really peddling, surely a more powerful way to sway opinions against them than anything else. It might force these 'moderate Muslims' we hear so much about to be more active in promoting their variant of the faith to counter the extremists which could only be a good thing, if not it might highlight that perhaps they aren't so moderate after all which would again be enlightening for all.

As for the neo-Nazis vs antifascist conflict, whatever you think of neo-Nazis it is the extreme antifascist lot that turn up with the express intent to cause violence to others for attempting to express a viewpoint. If they weren't there it would just be a load of skinheads making themselves look a bit dim, the fact that they have to defend themselves with violence every time they speak their mind only serves to generate sympathy as far as I can see. IMHO pretty much everyone on both sides of those protests are morons but even morons have the right to express their opinions without fear of violence for doing so.

It was asked earlier should we allow a Nazi headquarters, the confederate flag etc and my opinion is absolutely yes. The price of freedom of belief and expression is that we will hear views and see symbols we find repugnant and yes we will be offended, this is a price that must be paid for the right to speak our minds and use what symbols we choose.

[TurboHatchback]

Greg66 said:

TurboHatchback said:

IMHO pretty much everyone on both sides of those protests are morons but even morons have the right to express their opinions without fear of violence for doing so.

It was asked earlier should we allow a Nazi headquarters, the confederate flag etc and my opinion is absolutely yes. The price of freedom of belief and expression is that we will hear views and see symbols we find repugnant and yes we will be offended, this is a price that must be paid for the right to speak our minds and use what symbols we choose.

How do you feel about the laws in Germany, which prohibit the use of Nazis symbols (except in confined circumstances, none of which would permit demonstrations)? And which outlaw Holocaust deniers?

I can see why those laws originated, the most catastrophic war and genocide in human history but today I would not support them. I believe the german public as a whole despise nazism more than any other country on earth, them regaining power and going for round 2 against the world just isn't on the cards and the right to freedom of expression is more important. As for holocaust denial, it should be illegal to teach kids that but otherwise if someone blindly chooses to ignore history then outlawing their opinion won't change it, the ire that allowing them to express it would expose them to would be more likely to change their view IMO.

rscott said:

PorkRind said:

chrispmartha said:

PorkRind said:

I had a very similar debate with some leftist at work about how I thoight violence could have been avoided at charlotavile had the right loonies been allowed to do their thing without being harangued by the loony left.

He said that any form necessary was acceptable to stop the rise of nazis. Whilst I don't condone the nazis I also don't condone the reg left method of using violence to shut people down they don't agree with. This article echos my debate with the guy at work

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a...

But if you're advocating free speech why are the 'loony left' not allowed a voice but the 'loony right' are.

The loony left comprised of antifa which apparently was the cause of the friction and violence. As Is usually the way, because with them if you stand for x or y and it doesn't fit their narrative you'll get a beating. Biggest bunch of hippocrits going!

So some of the right weren't also looking for a fight? They wore body armour, riot shields and carried clubs because they liked dressing up?

If I knew I was going to be physically attacked for exercising my right to freedom of expression then I would probably get tooled up too. It takes two to cause a fight, a sure way to avoid one is not to be there, that way the neo-nazi lot would have just looked like a load of wannabe hard idiots shouting at nothing and would have got very little media coverage. By turning up to use violence to try and suppress them from expressing their views the antifa lot make themselves look like violent morons and give the nazis press exposure far greater than they could ever manage by themselves..

[TurboHatchback]

rscott said:

Finally.

As for the rest - any evidence that all fights were started by the AntiFa? Are you seriously suggesting that the right wing protesters never initiated any of the physical confrontations? (apart from driving a vehicle into a non-violent protest) . I don't quite understand your failure to accept that both sides had a right to march (both had permits issued for that day) and that both sides went looking for, and got, trouble.

More pro-active policing, to keep the groups apart, rather than wait for trouble then wade in, would also have been more appropriate.

I'm quite sure that both sides were responsible for initiating violence and general muppetry, I don't support either side. What I'm getting at is why they were there at all: The nazis were there (as I understand it) to protest an issue (those statues) and generally promote their political agenda. On the opposing side there seems to be two groups of thought, those who want to peacefully express their opposing agenda and those who want to suppress the nazis from expressing theirs through violence, intimidation, 'naming and shaming' and any other tactic they can think of. The first is quite rightful, the second is wrong.

[TurboHatchback]

Bacon Is Proof said:

It's telling that so many posters refer to any anti-Nazi protester as extreme left or "Antifa".
Everyone's default position should be anti-fascist, it does not make you a loony leftie.
It's also telling that so many posters want to defend the Nazi's "right" to incite hatred. There are laws against that, and certainly in the US it's totally unconstitutional.

We've all seen the video of the Challenger ploughing into the crowd. Look at the people. Normal people in shorts and T-shirts, many just local residents unhappy with horrible Nazi scum coming into their town, not the army of uniformed militants many of the right wing apologists on here would have you believe.

You seem to be missing the underlying point here. Who has the right to define what everyones default position 'should' be? Imagine things switched around where the official position is Nazism and there are laws criminalising disagreement, not condemning jews made you a 'jew sympathiser', can you not see the problem there? Defending their 'right to incite hatred' has nothing to do with agreeing with them but is part and parcel of defending the rights of all to freedom of expression (and yes that includes anti-nazi viewpoints equally).

This whole 'if you don't vocally support my position then you must support the enemy' attitude is poisonous. Supporting someones right to express their views is not the same thing as supporting those views, a fundamental but important point that seems to be lost on many. I support everyones right to express their views without fear of violence as a fundamental condition of being able to express mine. The difference is that includes those that disagree with me, unlike those the thread was aimed at who want any opinion contrary to their own suppressed and made illegal.

[TurboHatchback]

TTwiggy said:

Rovinghawk said:

Please explain why I should have a default position as you suggest. My preferred default position would be to hear the views & decide for myself.

There's a bloke stood in front of you with a skinhead and a swastika tattoo on his forehead. He's wearing combat gear and carrying a gun. He's sporting a t-shirt with Hitler's face on it and an SS badge on his lapel. And you want to hear his views?

Are you expecting to be pleasantly surprised by what he has to say?

I would not like his views, much as I don't like the views spouted by men with beards in dresses who believe we should all join the caliphate and give up our evil fornicating ways. I support their right to have and express those views however lest my own views ever fall the wrong side of the 'allowed' divide. You can't split the two ideas, either we have thought policing and oppression (be it benevolent or otherwise) or we do not. I think opting for oppression because it's currently more comfortable and appears benevolent to you is a dangerous thing.

[TurboHatchback]

The merits of fascism, communism, left, right, black, white, religeon, atheism etc are beside the point. The issue is the State, 'establishment' or vocal/violent/abusive minorities being allowed to define what opinion is right or wrong, allowed or disallowed.

Bacon Is Proof said:

Rovinghawk said:

I presume you only advocate freedom of choice for those who agree with you? Oh- isn't that similar to fascism?

The great thing about strawman arguments is that they expose the creators as the ignorant trolls that they are.

He's right though, what you're saying is that because you believe a viewpoint is bad it shouldn't be allowed. Now the vast majority of the populace including everybody who has contributed to this thread agree that fascism is bad but you can't seem to see that we can think that yet still support the right to have and express fascist opinions. What if the majority or the state disagreed with you and made one of your opinions illegal or unacceptable?

An example: I believe in taxpayer funded healthcare for all, if I went to a deeply conservative republican US backwater that opinion would be anathema. It would be considered tantamount to communism which recent history suggests is bad, Stalin was a communist and killed lots of people so I must be evil. Now over there I would be 'in the wrong' but would you agree that I should be allowed to express my opinion safely? Can you not see the parallel?

[TurboHatchback]

andy_s said:

Colonial said:

We literally had a world war over this.

It was pretty much decided that fascism was not a good thing. It was one of the fundamental moments in recent world history.

What do you think the benefits of fascism are?

Well it's a strange one really; your comment made me think - I don't feel you're wrong by the way, but it's an interesting start point, as I'm not sure we went to war against fascism per se, but rather went to war against what a particular fascist regime was actually doing, not saying/thinking. Indeed, 'Peace in our time' would seem to suggest we were happy for the Germans to get on with things until they started invading our mates, basically.

The second obvious point is that although today we regard the 'neo-Nazi' as a vilified yet vestigial gang who occasionally get into headlines, and by extension and association we consider extreme right-wing groups as small and bothersome but not to be taken seriously on the political landscape; we should be mindful that within living memory a fascist government existed in half a dozen countries in Europe alone and the movements were extremely popular, levering as they did the poor social, financial and political conditions.
What is now vilified, was then embraced; and I would say that given the right circumstances, it could easily happen again. Who predicted the Arab Spring...?
[Caveat, of course, Nazism is not quite the same as fascism, the racist aspect especially].

-

From a principle point of view, If the extreme ends of the bell-curve are not allowed to speak, write or publish online [as the DPP Saunders seems to be going towards] then we forego the opportunity for the majority to point and explain and deride, and ultimately to ignore; by intellectually incarcerating an idea based on subjectivity and hyperbolic 'damage to ears' then we run the risk of letting the state manipulate and shape society by governing what we see and don't, which was rather a cornerstone of the fascists themselves...

Well put.