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

Why are you assuming prejudice? Many people's views on Islam and its difficulty with western culture are based on their own lived experience.

In the West, we are already seeing statements of pure fact being interpreted as hate speech. Laws against inciting hatred and so-called hate speech can and are being used as a cudgel against opposing ideologies in general and political parties in the particular -- as they are used to demonize those who question decisions made by the ruling class/the elites in government. The desire to control the information to which the general population may be exposed is totalitarian in nature. Freedom of speech protects everyone. Anyone who wishes to curtail it is either very naive, very short-sighted, or very dangerous.

Ah. Now what you say about that poll is extremely revealing ego. You are complaining that you believe things are 'manipulated' to give the impression that suits certain agendas.

Yet it seems like you would approve of the same poll being published if it said "80% of Muslims don't support ISIS". So you are doing exactly the same thing. You think stories should only be allowed if they contain a spin which coincides with your own viewpoint.

Re Saudi. Yes, but the point is, you rarely get a Twitter mob mobilising to criticise Saudi Arabia. And yes it is only Jews who are banned point blank. And they have whole cities and areas which operate 'no non-Muslims' policies and in many ways treat non-Muslims in a way not dissimilar to apartheid era South Africa. Yet this active discrimination is largely ignored by the left wing rentamob because they have the right credentials and an American right winger doesn't.

I fully agree with Ego.
In the case on the 'wrong' percentage that said that most muslims support ISIS, I know these numbers are crap. You know it.
But how many people do you think actually know that? The 'correction' wasn't given such a promient place was it? Nope. People will remember the idea. Muslims = ISIS.

The overall population does NOT have the skills and knowledge to know whether the stats/the headlines/ what xx said in his speech is likely to be rigt or not. They will believe it. And even if they are told after that actually it was wrong, that's what will stay.

You do know that's the reason why lawyers will say things that they aren't supposed to say during a trial. They will be told that x can't be taken into account in the judgement. And on the surface it won't. But hearing it will have influenced the jury/judge enough that it's worth doing.

Now take that at the level of the population, a population that won't be really told, actually that was wrong. Don't you think that all these ideas will influence people on how they think?

Gays and lesbians are allowed to enter Saudi Arabia, it's just not legal to actively recruit them.

I don't care how much you want to whinge about 'not needing a lecture'. Basically what you are saying is that you are in favour of the press being censored to conform to your viewpoint because you think you are right. Which is basically the thinking that has been behind every single repressive regime which silenced dissent which ever existed and you are no different from any of them.

The Lucy Meadows case isn't unique. And it's not just pet causes of the left who suffer from injustices at the hands of the press.

Someone quite close to me was one of the Rotherham victims. The political correctness lobby, left wing politicians and the left wing press had the abuse of thousands of girls hushed up for decades. Stopped the press from reporting on it, bringing criminal charges against people who spoke out about it, closing charities which tried to tackle it.

And it was all done by people with attitudes like yours. People who thought that things like that should be hidden because 'encouraging prejudice' is worse than letting children be raped.

So you might not feel like a lecture, but as someone who's sat holding somebody's hand when they're crying because their 13 year old daughter is up in Bradford being gang raped and the only person who's being threatened with arrest is her Dad for trying to rescue her; well I think you fucking need a lecture.

The problem with insisting that the press is tailored to conform to your own views is that sometimes those views are wrong.

I'm quite certain that if we went back 10 years ego you would have been quite happy to be one of the people who accused the Rotherham victims and their parents of being racist liars who shouldn't be allowed a voice.

Ah, WoodHeaven. Again, another platitude that repressive regimes like Stalinists and the Nazis used. The population are too stupid to know what to think so we will tell them the right things. You're arguing for censorship and propaganda only you're too dense to see it, then you're accusing the rest of the population of being thick? That takes some brass neck.

Incidentally I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the population understand exactly what 1/5 means. People who use arguments like that, that only a select few can understand and discern and should have authority over what the rest can read and consume so that they think the right way, they have been responsible for an awful lot of evil in the world.

For that 1 in 5 statistic, wasn't the question about if they had some sympathy for young UK muslims who went to fight in Syria? Most of that 20 % said they had some sympathy, not that they thought it was the right thing to do.

Indeed, Booyaka, OTHM, PoorFannyRobin, and many others.

'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.' [Booyaka]

Next thing we know, Germaine Greer will be banned.

You won't engage with me because you know I'm right. And you can't think of a single coherent argument which would demonstrate that your idealised press wouldn't silence people in those situations.

They used exactly the arguments you are using now to shut people up and bury it. It would inflame racial prejudice and increase tension so it had to be hushed up for the sake of 'cohesion' or just outright denial it was happening because it didn't suit their dogma to acknowledge it.

You can delude yourself all you want that somehow that would have been different. But it wasn't. I remember people like you using exactly the same arguments you are using now to hush it up then. You would have been exactly the same.

The masks are really coming off those who want to destroy the cornerstone of free societies: freedom of speech. Such disdain for the masses by those who pretend moral and intellectual superiority -- literally wanting to silence everything and everyone not promoting their niche ideologies! The adage "Scratch a liberal/progressive, find a fascist" is proving itself to be truer than ever.

Just in case: I hope everyone realizes I was NOT calling classical liberals (I'd like to think I'm one myself) fascists in my post above.

Booka but the reality IS that people do not know how to recoup information.
I will say it again, how many people do YOU think now think that stats of the DM are real and THE truth (one that no one wants to talk about because otherwise you are clasified as racist)?

Yes people know what 1 in 5 means.

But being able to separate what is genuine information and what isn't? I'm not so sure.

Again look at the last elections and the horrified reactions of working class people that thought the benefit cuts wouldn't apply to them.
Being just a tiny bit realistic, it should have been obvious though don't you think?

As I said before, I'm all for the freedom of speech as long it's not there to promote hartred or blatant lies.
And I think that saying it will all balanced itself is a very naive view of things. It won't. It will let the 'stronger' ones (ie the ones with more money/more power through media etc) get their way because their truth, even if racist, prejudiced etc... will always be heard whereas the 'other voices' will be drowned.

I'm not sure what sort of society we've created where the authorities are so scared of being called racist that they turn a blind eye to child rape. This is what happened in Rotherham.

Actually, I agree that everyone has a right to say what they want...

but then, it's also about group dynamics.

I feel that offensive things shouldn't be said to people who may be impressionable, vulnerable.

Maybe Trump should come with a sticker like those rap songs come with, you know 'parental advisory' or 'racist propaganda' or 'inappropriate stereotypes'

I have a very very, very diverse family. One of my sons thinks he's Jewish . My other son thinks he's Muslim because my husbands father is Muslim.

We are an American family. So when my little boys saw Trump saying he wanted to ban all Muslims, both my children became quite frightened about never seeing their Grandparents again.

I refuse to believe in hate. I think we all should refuse to hear hateful things.

My boys are 8 and 9, and we as a family aren't organised enough to have any real religious leanings.

Jews are not banned from Saudi Arabia. Israelis are.

Ego, there are lots of women on here who discuss things like their concerns over women's prisons, safety in women's spaces and rape and women's health services and the impact transwomen have on them. I suppose you would see all that shut down and demand there was no public discussion?

And yes, I am going to bring up Rotherham. I have people close to me who are involved in that case. I've talked about it on here before. You are demanding changes to the media which serve your own purposes and sod whether or not that means other people are silenced, put in danger or exposed to injustice.

As I said earlier, as you're trans this is something you should be very careful about. Certain groups aren't keen on trans people or gay people and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that one day you might find yourself on the receiving end of abuse or discrimination you can't talk about because somebody has decided the rights of another minority trump the rights of your minority.

Wood, I find it astounding somebody can come out with the crap you're posting about poor people and the working classes needing protecting from themselves then claim that it's them that's thick. It's not. Clue: it's you.

You're banging on about how you hate prejudice and it should be banned then trotting out your own prejudiced crap about how thick poor people are and how they don't understand anything unless it's explained by their betters.