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 do get a bit suspicious when we get a hate figure promoted at us as a target for public outrage. Thing is ~ Trump is merely contributing to the extreme right-wing racism that's become so prevalent in the US political mainstream.

Given the condition of the political discourse in America. Where there's been so much fear mongering and war hysteria since 9/11. What Trump says is not so extreme ~ believe it or not! What he is saying and proposing has been said and done before. They're just that bit more 'presentable' with it.

The problem is, freedom if speech doesn't always work well. Just a lot of other things like free market, democracy etc.
This is because populations aren't as well educated as we think they are (see the level at which NHS leaflets are written. It is assumed that for it to be understood by the najority of people, they cannot be over primary level of that).
A lot if people have no critical sense at all.

Then add things like the last terrorists attacks in Paris and lots of scaremongering things that are said by a lot if people. People are scared. They are told they are getting attacked (by the terrorists and by a lot if other politicians. The buzz word is now that we are 'at war').
So they want to protect themselves.

Very few people in this context are going to check what Trump has said. Did Muslims really cheer at the fall of the twin towers? They are likely just to believe it because it reinforce their own personal ideas that they are in danger and that its 'Muslims' as a whole that are dangerous.

Look st what happened In France last weekend. Regional elections saw the extreme right win in A LOT of places. Yes there will be a second tour. But atm people are saying loud and clear. We are scared and we will follow whoever is going to say they will stop that. Even if it's racist, against Muslims or whatever.
The same thing happened with Germany about 60 years ago :(

That's why freedom of speech is great. But boundaries such as not been allowed to say things that are utterly untrue or racist or there to promote hatred are necessary.

Because humans aren't wise.

Totally agree op.

Ego, the mistake you're making is that you're assuming that because the current political climate has a tendency to only impose limits on speech which you approve of and which benefit you then limits on freedom of speech are therefore a good thing in general.

But the thing is, whenever limits have been placed on freedom of speech in favour of a selected viewpoint being viewed as 'right' then that's been because enough of the general populace agreed enough that it was 'right' not to put up any resistance. So, for example, Nazi Germany stifled dissent and this met wide scale approval because the general populace believed it was the right thing to do in the face of communism. Stalin stifled dissent while killing lots of people, as did Mao, but the general population would have felt this was largely for the communal good of stopping Capitalists destroying their communist utopias.

My point is, an awful lot of people are happy to support curtailment of freedom of speech when they feel it somehow benefits them and they prefer the dominant viewpoint of the time which is shutting down opposing views. But what are you going to do when the viewpoint you prefer is no longer fashionable or the dominant ideology? Because nothing ever stays the same. And if you try to silence others today, you make it easier for them to silence you when the wind changes.

Woodheaven, the FN aren't "extreme right", if you look at their policies of economic protectionism they're actually very left-wing. You might look up Keir Hardie's views on importing migrant workers in the early days of the Labour party; he saw it as a threat to the hard fought pay and conditions of native workers which it was and is. How can people not see what a right wing wet dream mass immigration is? The British Labour party opposed the common market back in the 60s for those very reasons. It's like being told day is night when I hear supposed leftwingers defending high immigration and smearing those who oppose it as racist. I don't like Marine le Pen but far right? Please.

And I find the comparisons with 1930s Germany really tiresome. The army guards France's synagogues and schools because of deadly attacks by Islamists in the last couple of years including schoolchildren murdered in Toulouse. French Jews are very frightened of the "far right". It's just not who you think.

I disagree. There is no right to hate speech and speech that will potentially incite hatred and violence towards non whites

Who defines hate speech? Don't you trust people to think for themselves or do you think they're too stupid?

Why only non whites? What about people marching with placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam" or the time British-born people burned books and called for the murder of Salman Rushdie without a single prosecution? When you go down the road you're suggesting, where you start banning and censoring, you leave the truly nasty people take over the conversation. And that's what's happening all over Europe.

So lubeybooby, using Rotherham as an example, the CSE there was hushed up for exactly the reasons you suggest. Damaging 'community cohesion', providing ammunition for the far right the danger of increasing tension in the local area. Thousands of girls were raped and abused for decades in the interests of 'not inciting racial hatred'. People who spoke out about it were accused of racism and in some cases prosecuted.

What do you think? That the people doing this should have been allowed to carry on because the girl's right not to be raped was less important than the rights of their rapists and their communities to have the crimes hidden in the interests of 'not inciting racial hate'.

Where do you draw the line of 'inciting racial hate'? Is criticising the treatment of women in Sharia courts 'inciting racial hate'? Is speaking out against FGM 'inciting racial hate'? There really is a danger that these limits can be misused, I certainly think Miliband's idea of making 'Islamophobia' a criminal offence would have been extremely dangerous. Because it is an ideology, no ideology should be beyond criticism.

Incidentally, am I the only person who sees the irony of a lot of people who are getting extremely angry because a man has talked about banning people from his country because of their beliefs are suggesting remedying that by banning him from their country because of his beliefs?

We really have a perverse system now. Many believe belief should be protected, but only if you believe the right things..that is the road to totalitarianism....

I was referring specifically to Trumps comments and couldn't possibly come up with a comment that could cover every situation in the world ever

Trumps comments were hate speech and I don't think he should be allowed to shoot his mouth off willy nilly and potentially incite violence (and definitely hostility) against muslims.

Anyone who's interested in where the free speech debate is these days should watch

She's battling all the way through to be heard over hostile behaviour, heckling, intimidation and rudeness by young Islamist men who accuse her of intimidating the and violating their 'safe space'. She keeps talking anyway, a blistering critique of the alliance between liberal leftwing supporters of censorship, and the Islamist fascists who are using repressive 'liberalism' as a Trojan horse for theocracy.

This isn't about hate speech against non-whites. It's far subtler and more fundamental than that. If we don't defend Donald Trump or Tyson Fury it's that much harder to defend Maryam Namazie.

Obama’s proposed that the US admits 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US and Jeb Bush said that only Christians ought to be accepted, no Muslims allowed.

If Trump had said that, it would doubtlessly be splashed all over the news and the subject of much debate on here I'm sure

OTHM Maryam Namazie is a total heroine. She cancelled a recent talk in my old university recently when she was told it would be subjected to an unusual level of moderation not imposed on anyone else because of security concerns. She ended up speaking as the guest of another college society but the original incident was disgraceful. This is a university which invited Anjem Choudhary to speak a couple of years ago and has on its staff a man who is the spiritual director of a mosque which has regularly invited anti-semitic loons to preach- a man who publicly refused to condemn Bin Laden or the London tube bombers. I recommend Nawal El Sadaawi the Egyptian feminist writer if you haven't yet read her- another brave woman who's suffered abuse, professional damage, exile and death threats for her critique of misogyny in Muslim majority societies for over 40 years. I'm sure there are some idiots who would see her as "inciting hatred".

Well no you weren't lubey. You were talking about 'hate speech'. But then you say that you 'couldn't possibly' cover every situation. But that's what curtailments on freedom of speech do. They make a blanket law which does cover every situation. So although you think it's wonderful because it shuts up people you disagree with, it can also have unintended and damaging consequences. And you can't ignore that simply because you want the satisfaction of shutting up those who disagree with you.

Incidentally, Saudi Arabia have long discriminated against Jews, denying them entry to the country or work visas. I'm perplexed as to why the people who are so appalled by Donald Trumps hypothetical situation have never been particularly bothered about that situation which is actually a reality. That's not 'every situation', that's not just hate speech. That's a hate action. And nobody says a fucking word about it because Jews aren't trendy victims at the moment.

Maryam Namazie is a great example of the unintended consequences of 'hate speech' legislation. The extreme religious right is doing a splendid job of co-opting the language of social justice to insulate themselves against criticism and silence people who challenge them. Anyone getting too trigger-happy about accusations of 'hate speech' needs to keep that in mind.

Once we accept the premise that a reasonable reaction to the idiocies of Donald Trump is to ban him, then banning Maryam Namazie becomes an option and we're halfway to reinstating blasphemy laws in this country, all in the name of 'progressive social justice'.

ofgs... OK let me put it another way then

inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence isn't it?

That is what trump is guilty of

Do you think inciting racial hatred should be perfectly permissible? I doubt it

we're on the same side here but for some reason you just want an argument

Good point Bossytits. I too am suspicious that we've been thrown a bit of a scapegoat in D Trump. After all, he's just one of many others saying more or less the same thing. Only Trump does it without the Spin Doctors and the polish. Maybe that's his appeal?

www.independent.co.uk/voices/offended-by-the-daily-mails-cartoon-of-refugees-and-rats-fine-but-you-don-t-have-a-right-to-censor-a6738356.html

Interesting article from the Independent defending the DM cartoon. I totally agree with the writer. We are sleepwalking into a situation where criticising a religion or any member of it is seen as 'incitement' and criminalised is a dangerous place to go.

Yes, what happened to Maryam Namazie is a brilliant example of what happens when you let whinyarses run riot with their 'safe spaces' amnd 'no platforming'.
Religion is fucking bullshit and the long, long tradition of left-wing men joining forces with supersititious fuckwits on an 'anti-racism/anti-Islamophobia' ticket is all about silencing women, because there has always been an element of vicious misogyny in left-wing activism.

If something is actually untrue it's a different matter. I think that Sun story is going to be a hard one for anyone to get anything to stick against. There was some ambiguity in the question, but to the overwhelming majority of people in Britain someone who travels to fight in Syria is going to be an Islamist with ISIS or Al Qaeda as I'm not aware of British people going to fight in Syria for any other side in great numbers.

I think pretending the respondents were referring to people fighting against the Islamists is pretty disingenuous. Other polls have suggested that support could be even higher, up to 50% and that's from a left wing paper:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357

Regardless, the Sun should have made sure that the poll they used was water tight. But that's not really the point for you ego is it? Even if the post was absolutely water tight you still wouldn't want it published would you?

I don't like no-plat forming. It's a tough one, hate speech can be so inflammatory and a lot of silent racists can feel vindicated if it is on tv.

Nick Griffin on Question time was indeed brilliant, I was really against allowing it, but minutes in we opened a bottle of wine and high fived each other safe in the knowledge the BNP is dead. It did crumble once he showed what an utter fuckwit he is. Without a nationwide audience on BBC prime time that might have taken years to achieve.