Ann Widdecombe Brilliantly Argues In Favour Of Free Speech

[featfan]

GOD I LOVE this woman.

[featfan]

https://africanarguments.org/2019/07/09 ... nda-needs/

Another strong woman standing up.
Enter your favorite leaders name where needed.

[featfan]

Just remember
You choose to be offended, you choose to take offence. You don’t have to be offended, you don’t have to take offence.

Longer vid 18 minutes, but free speech thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSBfdXNWWk
Katie Hopkins.

We need to fight hard for Free Speech.

[d0nb]

We probably all have a list of people the world would be better off not hearing from. Those who are comfortable in the belief that the "right" list is the one that they and their sycophants agree on are among the most deserving of a place on such lists.

[Scorp]

d0nb, The heart of the matter is what is your intention behind this post?

We probably all have a list of people the world would be better off not hearing from. Those who are comfortable in the belief that the "right" list is the one that they and their sycophants agree on are among the most deserving of a place on such lists.

[featfan]

George Orwell, the great foe of censorship, thought policing and humbug, said: ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.’

[the truth]

GOD I LOVE this woman.

love it left wingers on here could learn a thing or two from her

[Scorp]

George Orwell, the great foe of censorship, thought policing and humbug, said: ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.’

And Brian Leiter said,

“I also argue for viewing "freedom of speech" like "freedom of action": speech, like everything else human beings do, can be for good or ill, benign or harmful, constructive or pernicious, and thus the central question in free speech jurisprudence should really be how to regulate speech effectively — to minimize its very real harms, without undue cost to its positive values — rather than rationalizing (often fancifully) the supposed special value of speech.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2450866

[JagXKR]

— to minimize its very real harms

That's the real question isn't it. What are "real" harms? Snowflakes would have a much different definition than normal people. Left wing Antifa would have a different definition than normal people.
And yes, left wingism is the true enemy of free speech.

[Scorp]

"Yes, "real harms" speech and expression is certainly that which causes harm to 'normal people.'

For instance, here’s a paradox: One of Lindsay Shepherd’s bosses wanted to censor her from using the example of Jordan Peterson’s challenge against passing legislation that requires people to address a particular segment of society in a certain way as part of one of her lectures to her students. Yet her boss felt that he had the freedom of expression to compare Peterson to Hitler. So who is the ‘normal’ person that is being ‘harmed’ in this instance? And who is the person or persons that is / are doing the harm?

[JagXKR]

You must let the boss express his views. There is no real harm to Peterson. And in letting the boss express his view it will show who he is and what he stands for. Stifling Shepard is the crime. Free speech is being harmed. No person is being harmed by the speech just by the actions of preventing the freedom of speech.
Capisce?

[featfan]

"Yes, "real harms" speech and expression is certainly that which causes harm to 'normal people.'

For instance, here’s a paradox: One of Lindsay Shepherd’s bosses wanted to censor her from using the example of Jordan Peterson’s challenge against passing legislation that requires people to address a particular segment of society in a certain way as part of one of her lectures to her students. Yet her boss felt that he had the freedom of expression to compare Peterson to Hitler. So who is the ‘normal’ person that is being ‘harmed’ in this instance? And who is the person or persons that is / are doing the harm?

I don`t think any "normal" people are the ones who need a safe space.
They can either say how they feel or walk away and go on with their lives.

[Scorp]

And because the 'cat was out of the bag' the students got the message anyway.

[d0nb]

d0nb, The heart of the matter is what is your intention behind this post?

We probably all have a list of people the world would be better off not hearing from. Those who are comfortable in the belief that the "right" list is the one that they and their sycophants agree on are among the most deserving of a place on such lists.

That speakers should not be subject to peremptory challenges by panels of hyper-sensitive ideologues from the left or the right. If anyone deserves to be "No Platformed" it would be the one who seeks the power to deny a platform to others.

[Scorp]

So what do you think of Peterson as paradox?