Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[Tony]

Though good taste and censorship are not bedfellows.

[valleylad]

Do you believe that people should have the right to express their views, opinions and beliefs no matter how objectionable?

 

Do some people need protecting from their views, or do some folk maybe need protecting from themselves?

 

Are some things so taboo that they should be left unsaid - even if people think it?

 

if im in the pub i always keep my gob shut saves on dentist bills but on line why not say what you think its a free ish country.

[Photofit Ed]

if im in the pub i always keep my gob shut saves on dentist bills but on line why not say what you think its a free ish country.

 

However do you manage to drink?

[truconstruct]

if im in the pub i always keep my gob shut saves on dentist bills but on line why not say what you think its a free ish country.

 

The problem is people like Wildcat would stop you doing that, where'as I would say that you have every right to say what you want.

 

Tony makes an example in the BMP in that the more we know about them the less endearing they become.

 

What's really interesting is the likes of the BNP standing up for freedom of speach, and the likes of the trendy left arguing for censorship.

 

My my, how things change eh.

[Wildcat]

Your answers are hollow then, they have no basis because you are making a leap between talk and deed that doesn't exist.

 

To maintain your double standards possition and attempt to cover with smoke and mirrors just won't do.

 

You have not answered the questions before you, question that you yourself forced with your own statements contradicting yourself.

 

What question have you asked that I have not answered?

 

Further to my answer before about words influencing deeds. Why do you think businesses spend the billions they do on marketing if it produces no results? There is a billion pound industry based on words influencing deeds.

 

If you are honestly saying words cannot influence actions, then there isn't any point arguing because whatever either of us say will be achieve nothing.

[truconstruct]

YOU know full well what the question is, and I'm not letting you cover up with your smoke and mirrors.

[Wildcat]

The problem is people like Wildcat would stop you doing that, where'as I would say that you have every right to say what you want.

 

Why spoil it by making stuff up about my views?

 

Tony makes an example in the BMP in that the more we know about them the less endearing they become.

 

What's really interesting is the likes of the BNP standing up for freedom of speach, and the likes of the trendy left arguing for censorship.

 

My my, how things change eh.

 

The BNP however don't stand up for freedom of speech, ask Colin Auty about it.... or Mark Collett, who they reported to the police for expressing his freedom of speech) nor do the left (on the whole) oppose it. You could also look in their constitution at the part calling for a clause 4 style proscription on homosexuality in schools or the media. Nor do the BNPs constant attacks on groups like Searchlight or Hope not Hate for exposing the BNPs activities say much for their views on censorship.

 

You might be confusing No Platform with censorship. That is however a completely different argument and is about freedom to express a moral decision to boycott an activity that might give a view you morally oppose (ie the BNP) good publicity.

[Wildcat]

YOU know full well what the question is, and I'm not letting you cover up with your smoke and mirrors.

 

No I genuinely don't.

 

I have been dipping in to the thread and might have missed something.... but I can't spot anything obvious.

[valleylad]

However do you manage to drink?

 

Nice One:hihi:

[Phanerothyme]

Though good taste and censorship are not bedfellows.

 

So far we've only been talking about extreme or objectionable views. What about dim or ugly views? Should they be suppressed for the sake of aesthetics?