To hate what he says but he has a right to say it

[Tamponlady]

I think Donald trump is a dick but he has a right to be ones huge one also this shit with the furey guy

This is becoming like 1981 the thought police

People don't like gays and they are racist if we don't tackle these people and simply try to shut them up they feed of there sence of grievance

You allow people to dig their own grave when you shut people up some may wonder why maybe have have somthing to say the chattering class don't want to hear let them talk and we all realise it's bull shit

Nick griffin is a prime example for years people were not allowing the BNP a platform the Bbc were lambasted for letting him on its the best thing they ever done they emploded before the fateful night there base was growing because no one heard them some actually thought they were respectable

The personality of the year award will sort itself out if people think
fury is a twant they won't vote for him

I hate what you say but defend you right to say it you don't stop people being anti gay or rasict because you keep them quiet

Mr trump wants to ban Muslims from the USA because he dosnet like what they stand for so in turn we want to ban him because we don't like what he stands for let him come and we can tell him what a fuck wit he is

I agree OP.

If "we're" going to have a democracy, we have to trust the people to do the right thing when it matters. If we want to impose our version of right, regardless of whether the majority agree, that's a dictatorship. So one odious man has some views that a scary number of Americans seem to agree with. It's up to the rest of them to speak up and show them they're wrong.

If people like him aren't allowed to speak, they're justified in believing they're being wronged. It just makes thier views stronger and they only talk about it with likeminded people, so right-minded people never get the opportunity to argue the other side.

When you shut those up who you disagree with ... You become the worst despot dictator

Exactly - well said, OP

You allow people to dig their own grave when you shut people up some may wonder why maybe have have somthing to say the chattering class don't want to hear let them talk and we all realise it's bull shit

I agree and have similar opinions about the Islamic extremists who hand out copies of the Quran to people on the streets - I have read the Bible and decided it was too misogynist for my tastes, so I don't really understand why they think reading the Quran will convert anyone.

However, no one is required to give idiots like Trump a platform. He should be allowed to stand on a soapbox and spout his nonsense in the streets, but if you have a budget and can use that budget either to let an idiot speak or let someone with sensible opinions speak, the decision is obvious.

The problem is when the fuckwits and hate-inciters get given, not only a platform, but a storm of column inches and clicks by a media obsessed with shallow provocation. Feed the beast and it will grow. Why, for example, are the hateful remarks of a US presidential hopeful splashed to such an extent over the British media? Because they make good soundbites, and that's as deep as some of our media gets. These wankers thrive on the oxygen of publicity.

And what harm does it cause? Well, perhaps UKIP would have won far less of a share of the vote at the last election if the BBC had toned down their love affair with Nigel Farage a little.

Public figures with knowledge and tolerance, who invite open discussion on complex issues are just so dull aren't they, let's not focus on them...

I disagree Stubbornstains. We know there are a fairly high % of people in UK who read The Daily Mail broadly share the same position as Nigel Farage but in the end democracy won and UKIP didn't do anywhere near as well as the responses to those sound bites would have suggested.

Publicising the most stupid things Trump says will galvanise decent people to make sure he doesn't win. Without that he's a Republican candidate they've heard of, who was successful in business (which makes him attractive to Republicans) but who they don't really know much about

mmm

yes and no

I do feel people are far too often shut down, especially around any issue to do with racial prejudice or in this case religious prejudice

but with free speech comes responsibility and especially someone in power or has power to influence they are in a position to incite racial hatred and this is what he is doing then there has to be laws to stop them

sadly it shuts down discussions as anyone who raises issues regarding islam in this case or immigration is far too often shouted down and called racist that helps no one one about from right wing groups

See, I think that focusing too much on what the fuckwits have to say moves the parameters of the debate downwards.....I caught Jeremy Vine on R2 today (I know, I know, but the car doesn't have digital radio) and there was a piece about Donald Trump, inevitably. And the gist of the piece was "Banning Muslims from the US- how would that even work?" .

Obviously, most callers were against DT's comments, but even so, this focus helped to reinforce the parameters of the current debate in the mainstream media, which seems to be "How can we manage the threat to the West from Islamic extremists?". When, IMO, what it needs to be focusing on are questions like: "Where did ISIS come from, what is the West's continuing role in creating this shitstorm, and how can we get it to end- for the good of everybody?" (Sorry if not clear- drink taken ).

I suppose, to return to the original question, I wouldn't ban the fucker. But I wouldn't be in favour of him being given the platform of being leading item in the news to air his twattery either.

In the USA, they have unfettered free speech (1st amendment?)... Much as i might be offended by what some say using this freedom, I prefer that to the direction we seem to be taking as a country... Without hesitation I believe inciting racial hatred to be utterly immoral, but I think trying to ban such things is actually counterproductive ultimately, and the thin end of the wedge... It's led to an emerging culture of 'empty chairing' and attempts to silence those who do not hold to the 'liberal consensus'.

Befor this last election Miliband was spouting on about making islamophobic comments illegal... How would that have worked I have no idea. It's the polar opposite of Trump but equally counterproductive in its own way.

YANBU. Tyson Fury isn't going to win sports personality of the year because of his repellent views. I'm glad he's not been removed from the process, because if he had been he would have been able to say 'PC stopped my winning SPOTY'. But he won't be able to blame anybody but himself when he doesn't win. And being rejected by the voting public after winning the heavyweight title speaks volumes more than a few people having you banned.

Incidentally someone mentioned Griffin above. He is an odious man, but he was right about Asian grooming gangs, but he faced prosecution for saying they existed although we now know it's true and those crimes were allowed to carry on for a long time because the 'That's racist' brigade created a climate where people were too afraid to speak out.

They can say what they want. They can stand on a box on the street corner with the megaphone if they want. But we don't have to put it on TV. That isn't what free speech means.

But by allowing these voices to be heard, you actually end up subverting and undermining them: you can't tell what an idiot someone is if you're only reading second hand reportage on them. Trump is clearly someone I would consider to be a bit of an idiot: but how do people know that without the chance to hear him? In the same way, I would let hate preachers go ahead and address public meetings - those who support them are going to support them anyway, and the rest of us get confirmation of our suspicions that they are lunatics.

The whole "hate speech as a crime" becomes problematic for this reason, though - and one of the biggest issues with it is that, unfortunately, it's too often selectively applied.

I totally agree. The First Amendment is one thing I do admire about the US. There is no right not to be offended. If you live in a secular democracy with a free press and the opportunity to be educated and form critical opinions, you do not have the right to go whining about safe spaces like a fecking child who needs protection. That's not what your ancestors had in mind when they were being burned as heretics or chaining themselves to railings for your benefit.

Freedom of speech is everything. Without it, there can be no freedom for the people in the long run. I know this sounds very simplistic; however, it's the most essential fact regarding any form of government.

They can say what they want. They can stand on a box on the street corner with the megaphone if they want. But we don't have to put it on TV. That isn't what free speech means.

No. But only having points of view on the TV which fits in with the current trend in political dogma and refusing to show dissent is a form of propaganda.

Hate speech laws are not a step forward towards enlightenment and Hegelian perfection; they're a step backward towards tyranny. Governments may change, may lie, and they often have their own reasons, as they say. The unintended (or intended!) consequences of laws to curtail and/or criminalize free speech can be really ugly. Why/how can people not see this?

As long as the platforms aren't owned by the government I see no reason why we shouldn't allow people to curate their own speakers. If no one wants to host him, that's his problem and has nothing to do with free speech.

But the short explanation, the government isn't censoring him, TV sponsors are. They aren't obligated to pay for ads on a TV show that doesn't promote values they can stand behind. He has his own megaphone on his social media pages. Let him be a racist idiot on twitter like everyone else.

I think you are somewhat misunderstanding the point of the petition.

The petition is not only being signed by people who think Trump should be banned from coming to Britain.

It's also being signed by people who want to see a debate about his views and whether that makes him the sort of person we should be inviting over her, in parliament. And by people who fully understand that it is extraordinarily unlikely that he won't be allowed to come her but quite like the idea of his knowing that many Brits find him totally odious.

So whilst I would not be comfortable with him being banned - although if he steps any closer to inciting racial hatred that might change - I think the petition is really interesting in that what happens re the debate and the message about how many people find his comments abhorrent.

I agree - let him come and show people what an unpleasant, racist and ignorant person he is. As OP says - given half a chance, most odious, racist ranters, have a tendency to dig their own graves.

Freedom of speech is great but it has some downsides too. That why you need limits to it.

Wow. Just wow.

YANBU. Give him enough rope, let him hang himself.

He is well aware that many people find his views abhorrent. He doesn't care. People in Britain won't be voting for him or any of his opponents in any case, so he is also aware that how he comes across in the UK is irrelevant.

I agree with you, PoorFannyRobin.

Egosum, everyone in the US has the right to free speech, those for and those against, no matter what they are for or against. The hope is that sense will prevail in the long run. Trust in the ability of people to make up their own minds prudently, having heard all shades of opinion, is a basic assumption behind the right to free speech. The alternative - protection of certain opinions - is abhorrently paternalistic and fundamentally undemocratic.

He has every right to say what he wants, however in the same respect, nobody should be forced to give him a platform, and nobody should be silenced from criticizing him if that's what they want to do. T

The man said some profoundly ignorant and downright fascist thing and is receiving backlash for it. What you're seeing now is actually freedom of speech working perfectly.

Freedom of speech is great but it has some downsides too. That why you need limits to it

I disagree... Freedom of speech with limits isn't freedom of speech.