Banning Mean The UK is trying to "ban mean". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I guess freedom of speech is a thing of the past...
Galt: What eats me is that what it took to have a state pass a censorchip clause was a wrinkly whining old hag like Dr. Laura. Its like killing flies with bullets. And she's not mean. She's a Jewish predictable prude, and she's boring. If they'd pass 'meany' laws on account of someone like myself when it comes to conventional love and middle-classed blah, then you can talk about censhorship worth its weight in salt. I'd be worth every bullet. But there's something in that article about the student body that was interesting: Firstly, there most certainly is this air of Stalin style speech codes on college campuses. And its odd since colleges are supposedly fertile grounds for liberalism. I should know. I was almost banned for an editorial I did on Charles Manson. Whatever. Much like rabid patriots and sports fanatics, school administrators can't understand the need for opinion. Secondly, is it "campii" or "campuses"? This word suddenly looks so odd to me.
So you guys are against censorship as a whole? If so, what if someone were to put up a virtual movie that portrayed slavery as something glorious and to be embraced? The Supreme Court has said that virtual porn w/ underage people on it is okay since no one is directly affected, so wouldn't virtual slavery be alright too? It's all under the banner of free speech, so what say you? Personally, I think censorship would be an improvement if it were kept to banning stuff against public decency.
I think this might get worse before it gets better.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is a great topic for discussion,you fucking bastards! Might as well say it now while I can.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think this is a difficult subject... One thought tells me that free speech should be the ultimate goal of a truely free soceity, but another thought tells me that indeed people, need some basic protection from sick bastards, creating an environment where hate (possibly supporting/leading to criminal acts) is advertised.... Where is the thin line of what can be said and what not ? Who am I to censor the sick bastards, maybe I am the sick bastard who need to be censored Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Primero- Answer the fucking question. What the devil is the plural for campus? Segundo- Jcarl: Cencorship does not tell me anything about social mores. It tells me about a government's assumption of its people. And how you take it lets me know whether you truly are the idiot the government thinks you are. Tell me something.......if someone gets shot on televion do you look down at your shirt in alarm and look for blood?
Colleges are fertile grounds for modern liberalism (leftism). The problem is that leftists are no more opposed to censorship than are right-wingers - possibly less so, depending on what is being said and who is being offended by it.
The UK isnt trying to ban anything, its a council trying to protect its employees from hateful abuse. In the good old days we might have taken him round the back and given him a good kicking, but we dont operate that way these days.
I can't speak for others, but I basically am. The exception being issues of individual rights (slander, defamation, breach of contract, etc.). So what if they did? There are negative messages in media all the time. Take "white power" rock or rap songs with anti-white messages and stories about committing criminal acts against Korean business owners as an example. Why should it be illegal if nobody is being enslaved and no children are being used in this "virtual porn"? Don't get me wrong; I think anyone who wants to look at child porn - even fake child porn - is a sicko, but I can't logically justify punishing someone for an act that doesn't actually harm others. Who determines what public decency is?
Didn't you read the bold print at the beginning of the article? He was banned for life from using a word? How is that not censorship? How is that not oppressive? Here's more: You don't think its a little scary that the government can take action against people for making racist remarks?
Mephurio: Ha! Some 300 posts and finally an answer. Now there's the reason why you fucking hellions will forever and a day be plagued with meanies- you can't read you can't think you can't read for yourself you can't think for yourself Pity. But it keeps me in business.
"Didn't you read the bold print at the beginning of the article?" Yup. "He was banned for life from using a word? How is that not censorship? How is that not oppressive?" As opposed to him opressing others by using it on them? "You don't think its a little scary that the government can take action against people for making racist remarks?" Not really. I thought the USA started the zero tolerance idea? If he was on the internet, he could make as many remarks as he likes, its that they are aimed and directed in person to other people that is the problem. Stupid though he undoubtedly is, constant insults do wear people down and cause stress.
Guthrie, in the latter half of the eighteenth century Anno Domini, a number of august and affluent patriachs convened in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to revise what was then known as the Articles of Confederation. However, amazingly enough, they trashed that plan, instead creating a whole new arrangement predicated more on the principle of federalism than that of the feeble confederacy. Though this "Constitution" is now the basis of government in the United States of America, it first had to be ratified by three-fourths of the virtually independent states, and the anxieties of the often fiercely sectionalist legislatures of each respective state had to, of course, be assuaged. To attain this aim, a man named James Madison composed the Bill of Rights, a careful listing of much-needed addenda to the Constitution. The first item on the list is a guarantee that the "freedom of speech," or the liberty to communicate as one pleases, shall be an undeniable prerogative of the citizenry, not to be encroached upon, squashed, or compromised. See?
From what I know, the only hate speech, or any kind of speech that is illegal is where someone tries to incite others to commit a crime. That's in the states though... As far as britan or canada go, i've never heard much about them being big supporters for freedom of speech. I agree, being baned from using a word shouldn't be allowed in a civilized country. Though who ever said britan was civilized? haha.. j/k. But even if it shouldn't be allowed, no one can really stop them, cept the ppl who live there. By the way Galt, is free-market.net really your homepage or just somewhere you like to go?
Redoubtable: No see. What did I tell you once about running at the mouth? Simply put: socialist by-laws parading in the guise of liberal democracy. Practiced prettier on paper.
The article said he was banned from using the word. It said nothing about this ban being limited to harrassing behavior. So you would have no problem with government agents monitoring a rap concert and rushing the stage and handcuffing the rapper the first time he or she said something like "white devil", "redneck" or "cracker"? I'm not sure about that. Anyway, the zero tolerance policies I've heard of have been applicable only to specific groups under specific circumstances (like children in schools, for example) rather than to society at large. If the guy was banned from using a word, wouldn't this also apply to things he typed and wrote? Hey, I agree that harrassment should be illegal, as it is a violation of individual rights, but the article said the guy was banned for life from using a word. That is just totalitarianism.
You might be on to something. Have you ever seen British teeth? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's just somewhere I like to go. I don't have a web page yet, but I am working on starting a business and will have one if that works out.
