By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
On the whole I support free speech and don't like it when people are cancelled etc.
But clearly there has to be a point where we criminalise words.
So my question to the board, which side of the line does this sit? Clearly it's based on ignorance/prejudice, even hatred. Am sure it will be investigated, but should it be prosecuted?
No, I do not believe this should be a matter for the law. No speech should be unless it presents an imminent threat of physical harm or incitement to commit other crimes.
The court of public opinion is sufficient for this sort of thing - let people say or do outrageous things and then they can deal with the backlash.
An example I like to go back to is the appearance of Nick Griffin on question time 12 ish years ago. It was controversial, many said it shouldn't be allowed. But it gave him an opportunity to air his views, he was roundly opposed, and where is he (or the BNP) now? Nowhere.
I would suggest that Mr Fox has to a degree had his acting career curtailed by 'cancel culture' following his comments on BLM. This has resulted in him 'doubling down' with stunts like we see here. Much like we saw with Katie Hopkins once all mainstream channels gave her the boot. Lets not create 'free speech' martyrs.
i haven't read the whole thread, but my honest response to that is that he is not at all well.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
2
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:08 - Jun 21 with 1790 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 10:56 - Jun 21 by baxterbasics
No, I do not believe this should be a matter for the law. No speech should be unless it presents an imminent threat of physical harm or incitement to commit other crimes.
The court of public opinion is sufficient for this sort of thing - let people say or do outrageous things and then they can deal with the backlash.
An example I like to go back to is the appearance of Nick Griffin on question time 12 ish years ago. It was controversial, many said it shouldn't be allowed. But it gave him an opportunity to air his views, he was roundly opposed, and where is he (or the BNP) now? Nowhere.
I would suggest that Mr Fox has to a degree had his acting career curtailed by 'cancel culture' following his comments on BLM. This has resulted in him 'doubling down' with stunts like we see here. Much like we saw with Katie Hopkins once all mainstream channels gave her the boot. Lets not create 'free speech' martyrs.
I hear what you are saying but this stuff is increasingly normalised when we let it air unchecked.
Case in point, the BNP are nowhere today because arguably our whole politics has shifted towards them. We’ve normalised anti-immigrant and islamophobic politicians and pundits at the same time as our government commissions reports saying structural racism effectively does not exist.
Add in the anti-LGBT nonsense (on the back of greatly increasing LGBT hate crimes over the past few years) and what’s normal or acceptable now seems to be narrow, reactionary and often pretty offensive views.
Pronouns: He/Him
3
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:22 - Jun 21 with 1736 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 10:56 - Jun 21 by baxterbasics
No, I do not believe this should be a matter for the law. No speech should be unless it presents an imminent threat of physical harm or incitement to commit other crimes.
The court of public opinion is sufficient for this sort of thing - let people say or do outrageous things and then they can deal with the backlash.
An example I like to go back to is the appearance of Nick Griffin on question time 12 ish years ago. It was controversial, many said it shouldn't be allowed. But it gave him an opportunity to air his views, he was roundly opposed, and where is he (or the BNP) now? Nowhere.
I would suggest that Mr Fox has to a degree had his acting career curtailed by 'cancel culture' following his comments on BLM. This has resulted in him 'doubling down' with stunts like we see here. Much like we saw with Katie Hopkins once all mainstream channels gave her the boot. Lets not create 'free speech' martyrs.
Nick Griffin and the BNP have been marginalised by the Conservatives fully adopting their divisive far right anti immigration bullsh1te. Stop the boats etc is straight outta the Nick Griffin playbook
4
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:37 - Jun 21 with 1705 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:22 - Jun 21 by leitrimblue
Nick Griffin and the BNP have been marginalised by the Conservatives fully adopting their divisive far right anti immigration bullsh1te. Stop the boats etc is straight outta the Nick Griffin playbook
And in my view, Mrs Thatcher did much the same in the late 70s, when the National Front were on the rise, when she talked about the country being swamped.
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:52 - Jun 21 by GeoffSentence
He couldnt even burn the flags, daft sod had obviously got hold of flame retardant ones.
I don't understand how people don't watch videos like that before uploading them and think wow this is cringe, I don't think I will bother uploading it.
Free speech v hate speech... on 10:56 - Jun 21 by baxterbasics
No, I do not believe this should be a matter for the law. No speech should be unless it presents an imminent threat of physical harm or incitement to commit other crimes.
The court of public opinion is sufficient for this sort of thing - let people say or do outrageous things and then they can deal with the backlash.
An example I like to go back to is the appearance of Nick Griffin on question time 12 ish years ago. It was controversial, many said it shouldn't be allowed. But it gave him an opportunity to air his views, he was roundly opposed, and where is he (or the BNP) now? Nowhere.
I would suggest that Mr Fox has to a degree had his acting career curtailed by 'cancel culture' following his comments on BLM. This has resulted in him 'doubling down' with stunts like we see here. Much like we saw with Katie Hopkins once all mainstream channels gave her the boot. Lets not create 'free speech' martyrs.
I think his acting career was curtailed by a lack of talent more than anything.
Free speech v hate speech... on 11:22 - Jun 21 by leitrimblue
Nick Griffin and the BNP have been marginalised by the Conservatives fully adopting their divisive far right anti immigration bullsh1te. Stop the boats etc is straight outta the Nick Griffin playbook
I just listened to PMQs, and Sunak managed to squeeze in 'stop the boats' completely out of nowhere. It's like Tourette's.
1
Free speech v hate speech... on 12:40 - Jun 21 with 1531 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 09:46 - Jun 21 by chicoazul
You’re giving him exactly what he wants.
He had 7m views before I posted so suspect his publicity isn't really down to me.
The "ignore him and he'll go away" argument didn't work with other hate preachers so am not sure your stance (as edgy as it is) stands up to scrutiny tbh, especially if it emboldens people who then use violence against those they despise.
Free speech v hate speech... on 09:09 - Jun 21 by GlasgowBlue
He should be. But I’ve seen too many uk synagogue’s spray painted with Swastikas and other Nazi slogans and escaping prosecution to think that he will face any charges.
If he isn’t prosecuted then he should be banned from social media (again, not going to happen) and not given any airtime on mainstream British media.
[Post edited 21 Jun 2023 9:10]
This will just give him more airtime on GB News in the name of "free speech" than he already has.
As others will no doubt point out, free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequences.
It's a hate crime and he should be punished in that light.
0
Free speech v hate speech... on 13:53 - Jun 21 with 1353 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 09:57 - Jun 21 by MattinLondon
And I understand your point as well. A government minister might well ignore this but then demand six months in jail for someone burnt Union Flag bunting.
Being cancelled is one of these rightie words as with woke that attempt to empower the thick with the idea they have some explanation for the 'dark forces' rallied against them,
A couple of weeks back I got into 'conversations' with one of these 'wokey cokeys' who was claiming that books being rewritten was an example of his cancel/wokey nonsense.
I asked him if he thought someone who owned something should have the right to do as they please with that possession, assuming any action does not harm others. Yes replied our paranoid rightie.
Then why are you saying that publishers should not have the right to change things they wish to sell, to a modern audience.
Why should a council run theatre be forced to book something that is offensive to the community ?.Is banning that man with the 97 on his shirt part of this alleged 'cancel culture' ?
It is not about some supposed censorship, but what those actions reflect. Taking down slave owners statures upsets these folk as it suggests that black people are equal to whites. Removing gollywogs and other grotesque charactures of black people is somehow an attack on them. However rather than offer some reasoned argument (this is not one) they fall back on these words - as with the sheep in Animal Farm. This attempt to justify dangerous thinking by rewriting the language is not new - Arbeit Mach Frei. UnAmerican activity.
The point is not to use their offensive language and to challenge these people on the merits of their claims. Never forget it is righties who have a long history of banning things, from the Life of Brian to the burning of books.
And if you don't think a reasoned argument will prevail, then you can use language that dates back to Anglo Saxon times. Righties tend to understand when to told to F*** off.
-1
Free speech v hate speech... on 14:17 - Jun 21 with 1302 views
Free speech v hate speech... on 10:59 - Jun 21 by lowhouseblue
i haven't read the whole thread, but my honest response to that is that he is not at all well.
More or less what I was going to say.
I switch off when it comes to celebrities as a (strong) general rule, so I'm not au fait with everything (or anything really) that Fox has done or said, although I have been peripherally aware that he's been widely seen as something of a tvvat over the last few years.
But I took a few seconds to watch that video, and first impression is of someone who feels very threatened by 'different' and also someone who looks on the edge of losing it. Poor sod, but there's only so much sympathy I can have for morons, so fk 'im!
Free speech v hate speech... on 14:17 - Jun 21 by DJR
I'll have you know my ancestors arrived in Britain by walking across Doggerland 9,000 years ago!
In those days, the slogan was Stop the Walkers.
Contrary to popular belief, Doggerland was not swept away at the end of the last ice age, but is alive and thriving on Thursday evenings half a mile up the road from me.
Free speech v hate speech... on 15:37 - Jun 21 by NthQldITFC
Contrary to popular belief, Doggerland was not swept away at the end of the last ice age, but is alive and thriving on Thursday evenings half a mile up the road from me.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
