Most Ironic protest in history

[unbeliever]

What,against you coming up with a decision of your own?

 

Against the consistency of your position with any meaningful definition of free speech.

[L00b]

Yes: Unlimited arbitrary censorship at the whim of the authorities.

No free speech. Your position is perfectly clear.

 

I strongly disagree. I say that this is a recipe for tyranny.

Certain topics and forms of expressions have been legally proscribed by law in France since the late 1940s, and still to this day. And no, I'm not talking about the burqa.

 

So, would you say that successive French governments and the French judiciary, which have regularly acted against individuals expressing themselves in breach of such statutes, resulting in fines/prison, have exercised "unlimited arbitrary censorship at their whim", and that this exercise answers to the definition of "tyranny"?

 

I think you were asking I1L2T3 for evidence of your "deeply flawed view of the world that you also present as fact", yesterday or the day before. The above sequence of posts of yours above, in the face of chalga's reasonable due process approach to the issue, is close to answering that call, tbh.

[unbeliever]

Certain topics and forms of expressions have been legally proscribed by law in France since the late 1940s, and still to this day. And no, I'm not talking about the burqa.

 

So, would you say that successive French governments and the French judiciary, which have regularly acted against individuals expressing themselves in breach of such statutes, resulting in fines/prison, have exercised "unlimited arbitrary censorship at their whim", and that this exercise answers to the definition of "tyranny"?

 

I think you were asking I1L2T3 for evidence of your "deeply flawed view of the world that you also present as fact", yesterday or the day before. The above sequence of posts of yours above, in the face of chalga's reasonable due process approach to the issue, is close to answering that call, tbh.

 

 

Ironically, by bringing an argument from one thread to another, you may have breeched the limits of free speech on this forum.

 

I seek an acknowledgement that those who campaign forcefully for certain people to be silenced are not the defenders of liberty.

[chalga]

Against the consistency of your position with any meaningful definition of free speech.

 

No,you are quite free to call it tyranny,that is your decision,I already made my position clear quite a few times now.

[unbeliever]

No,you are quite free to call it tyranny,that is your decision,I already made my positin clear quite a few times now.

 

I do not say that you are guilty of tyranny. I say that your position can lead to tyranny, as you are dangerously accepting of censorship.

[L00b]

Ironically, by bringing an argument from one thread to another, you may have breeched the limits of free speech on this forum.

That argument and your invitiation for evidence arguably transcends specific thread topics, but hey-ho and all the same: so sue me

I seek an acknowledgement that those who campaign forcefully for certain people to be silenced are not the defenders of liberty.

So, that's a dodge to my question, then.

 

Is the problem, that the factual context of my question runs counter to your (seemingly) monochromatic view of the issue?

[unbeliever]

That argument and your invitiation for evidence arguably transcends specific thread topics, but hey-ho and all the same: so sue me

So, that's a dodge to my question, then.

 

Is the problem, that the factual context of my question runs counter to your (seemingly) monochromatic view of the issue?

 

We're both discussing opinion. Unusually for you, you seem to be trolling.

 

I support, as I have stated, the specific and clear limits to free speech which I have described. A general proscription of "hate speech" is a license to censor anything the authorities don't like.

[chalga]

I do not say that you are guilty of tyranny. I say that your position can lead to tyranny, as you are dangerously accepting of censorship.

 

No,censorship laws are quite clear in any country,you either accept them or risk the consequences,in the case of this troll,the protesters should just have attended with loud whistles,bells,klaxons and sounded them at the appropriate times,job done.

[unbeliever]

No,censorship laws are quite clear in any country,you either accept them or risk the consequences,in the case of this troll,the protesters should just have attended with loud whistles,bells,klaxons and sounded them at the appropriate times,job done.

 

That's an admirable position on respect for the rule of law, but I favour repeal of so called hate-crime laws because of the value I place on free speech even when it is distasteful.

I suspect that this is where we diverge.

[L00b]

We're both discussing opinion. Unusually for you, you seem to be trolling.

News to me. I've set a factual context and asked you question, to try and steer your grasp of the issue towards a less binary appreciation (free/tyranny) as you have so far shown in your posts.

 

But well, as always, feel free to report my posts if you consider them to be trolling posts. When doing so, the irony of your effectively agreeing with and adopting chalga's view of the issue, would not be wasted with me, rest assured.

I support, as I have stated, the specific and clear limits to free speech which I have described. A general proscription of "hate speech" is a license to censor anything the authorities don't like.

Is this general proscription of "hate speech" what the protestors were campaigning for?

 

[bTW, hate speech is generally proscribed in that well-known undemocratic tyranny, that is the UK. Food for thought ]