Advanced search

Freedom of speech or should this man be censored? (triggering)

(29 Posts)
kim147 Fri 26-Apr-13 22:18:06

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SolidGoldBrass Thu 09-May-13 01:25:07

LastMango: But in a culture where censorship is permitted on the grounds of 'hurt feelings' then it's the powerful who get to use it as a big stick to shut down criticism. So feminist critiques of religion get silenced because of the hurt given to the feelings of the religious; rich white men with lawyers get to shut down criticisms of their unequal hiring policies by BME groups because calling them racists is 'hurtful' or 'defamatory'....
Censorship is never, ever, ever beneficial to oppressed groups, it's always used against them.

HullMum Sun 05-May-13 05:13:23

interestonly, do you think you may have quite badly misunderstood the point those above were making?

I don't think they misunderstood. I think they are being goady.

LastMangoInParis Sat 04-May-13 21:49:35

COunterspeech is always a much better solution than censorship.

In an ideal world, yes.
But the problem is that in a world that fetishes 'free speech' on the assumption that all 'speech' is inherently 'harmless', those who shout loudest - i.e. those who are the least vulnerable, in a very tangible, physical sense - i.e. those the most capable of intimidating/harming/silencing others and those the least capable of being intimidated/harmed/silenced are inevitably those whose speech is out there and heard. And so those people who are more vulnerable generally suffer as a result. And are accused of not speaking up for themselves.

JacqueslePeacock Sat 04-May-13 20:37:45

interestonly, do you think you may have quite badly misunderstood the point those above were making?

interestonly Sat 04-May-13 14:52:02

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

interestonly Sat 04-May-13 14:48:11

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

AutumnMadness Wed 01-May-13 17:15:46

Well, this is clearly hate speech. But if they are so precious about the freedom of speech thing even when it promotes violence, then somebody should stand opposite this lunatic with a placard that says "If you think that anybody deserves rape, you deserve your legs to be broken in a dark alley". Childish but fair.

CheerfulYank Sat 27-Apr-13 19:13:37

Oh, don't I know it Snorbs. I just meant that they aren't governed by free speech laws in the same way.

Snorbs Sat 27-Apr-13 17:13:04

CheerfulYank, there is a long and inglorious history of students on sports scholarships in US colleges getting away with a lot worse than just shouting about rape while remaining on the team.

Eg, a recent case here of a school principal refusing to involve police in an alleged rape committed by their star basketball player.

Or this one, where a cheerleader was kicked out of school for refusing to cheer the man who had been convicted of sexually assaulted her.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 27-Apr-13 16:41:55

Thanks HM and CY.

CheerfulYank Sat 27-Apr-13 16:40:18

He must not belong to any sports teams or clubs...they can boot you off for that sort of behavior. That one douchebag down south that called Obama the N word over twitter got kicked off his college football team sharpish.

CheerfulYank Sat 27-Apr-13 16:38:09

Snatch I think if he named a specific black man it would be different. But otherwise yes, he could say that and not be arrested.

The KKK says all sorts of vile shit and they are protected, as is (as already mentioned) the WBC.

Counter protests are the way to go. Although, in the case of the WBC, I think a law declaring gravesites and surrounding areas as temporary property of the deceased's family would be nice. Because you can't protest on private property.

I'm not overly violent as a rule, but I almost hope that the WBC is stupid enough to go protest the bombing funerals. Bostonians are not renowned for their...physical restraint.

HullMum Sat 27-Apr-13 15:02:02

I like that there are men either side of him protesting him, I wonder why there aren't any women? I'd find it hard not to punch him in face, if I had to listen to that through out the day so maybe that's why.

What I find most interesting is that he apparently hasn't broken any school conduct rules, so maybe they needed to reconsider their ideas about what is appropriate on campus

interalia Sat 27-Apr-13 14:46:13

I don't think there's any legal remedy, but at my university people were sent down for less. It would have made the uni look terrible if someone like that wasn't sanctioned.

HullMum Sat 27-Apr-13 14:43:56

thedoctrine, hate speech is allowed as free speech under us law. think of the horrible protesters we have at funerals. the "God hates fags" ones. we really have truly free speech, legally speaking anyway, certainly not in the media or in front of your tea party loon neighbor... but legally we do. Still a university has the right to shut him down on their property. And they should. Considering rape stats on universities it's bound to be horribley triggering to many women on campus. Still I think having an obviously fucking stupid man holding signs perpetuating rape myths is probably a good way to show how stupid those ideas are.

StuffezLaYoni Sat 27-Apr-13 14:10:01

Aside from the bilge, how will this person ever find employment after leaving university?!

VerySmallSqueak Sat 27-Apr-13 14:08:14

I agree that I would be uncomfortable with censorship,but I would like to see both unofficial and official challenge.

Perhaps he can be invited into a lecture theatre where there could be an open discussion and question and answer session about his remarks.

I would like to see him understand why his remarks are unacceptable rather than see him silenced.

SolidGoldBrass Sat 27-Apr-13 12:49:36

No, it's not a threat as he isn't saying 'you WILL be raped' or 'I will rape you' and no, I don't think he should be censored. I like Basil's idea of counter-signs. COunterspeech is always a much better solution than censorship.

BasilBabyEater Sat 27-Apr-13 11:40:57

I think the women on the campus should get up placards which say:

"If men talk or act they're rapists, everyone should assume they are rapists"

See how that goes down.

Snorbs Sat 27-Apr-13 11:01:31

I think what he says is odious and abhorrent. But I don't think he should be censored.

I think instead that he should be shouted down and/or ridiculed. I understand that when he turns up on university campus he usually is.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 27-Apr-13 09:35:58

If he said "if a black man is in my neighbourhood at 3am, he deserves to be beaten up", would that still be free speech, CY?

(genuine legal Q re America, not being snippy)

LRDtheFeministDragon Sat 27-Apr-13 00:36:15

Sorry, I may have missed the OP's point if she was asking about law. blush

CheerfulYank Sat 27-Apr-13 00:12:04

Oh, right. Yes it should be certainly, I just mean that under American law it isn't.

LRDtheFeministDragon Fri 26-Apr-13 23:57:15

I think it should be counted as a threat, though - that's why I'm saying I don't know the law. For me, just responding to kim's question - yes, this should not be allowed as free speech.

I think if we had more rules about things like this, we would have less of the hate speech I've ended up reading too much of the last few days, and I honestly don't see what good it serves.

CheerfulYank Fri 26-Apr-13 23:47:37

It's not a threat because he isn't saying "I will rape you" or implicitly inciting others to rape.

So unfortunately he can't really be charged with anything.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now