| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:37 - Feb 15 with 1673 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:31 - Feb 15 by Churchman |
Can I refer everyone back to Dubs opening post? This is about some ignorant hillbilly voicing Trumps nonsense in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The reality is by spewing bile on Europe hillbilly oily rag Vance is doing the preparatory work for Trump and his best mate Putin to carve up Ukraine and in the private meeting that follows Europe. There’s no justification for it - trump wants treasure, Putin wants treasure land and his place in history. Zelenski will be in the room to be abused and told the deal. Nothing more.
It’s irrelevant to trump that Europes support has been twice as much as the US’. This is might by military kit.
European leaders need to be talking with each other right now. U.K., France, Germany, Poland, Finland, Baltics, maybe Italy. The threatened and most economically strong. Not to compete with besties Putin and Trumpy but to get serious about the future. To act. Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, Trump is Chamberlain, Putin Adolf, Zelenski the soon to be tried bloke with the tea tray.
If Trump tells Europe it should do this or spend that, he should be told to do one and that its military is needed in Greenland and Canada to defend them against a pariah state. That should raise his toupee an inch or two. As for hayseed Vance, they should be telling him they’ll talk to the organ grinder and lackey Musk, not the monkey with the cymbals and he can scuttle off back to his moonshine.
That’s the dynamic and the art of the deal.
Not sure I’d have made a good politician 😃 [Post edited 15 Feb 23:32]
|
looks like they're getting an opportunity to meet together, let's hope they use it well!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04nw1pg3k2o |  |
|  |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:41 - Feb 15 with 1645 views | Churchman |
Ta. Hadn’t seen that. Agreed - as you rightly say let’s hope the use it well. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:42 - Feb 15 with 1642 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:34 - Feb 15 by StokieBlue |
Why is how strongly the viewpoint is held relevant? It's totally irrelevant. If a viewpoint is demonstrably incorrect then believing it strongly doesn't make it less incorrect.
"I strongly believe that Jupiter is made of cheese".
That statement is just as wrong if they strongly believe it or not.
A very strange post from you which totally ignores the modern day context that myself and others have pointed out and ends in quite a bizarre way that looks a tad like a personal attack.
SB [Post edited 15 Feb 23:35]
|
because you are not the public arbiter of truth. your views are, like everyone else's, views, and they are subjective.
debate and speech and evidence will show to the satisfaction of all but the brain dead that jupiter is not made of cheese.
you don't seem to have any notion of the subjectivity of your own views, or that it is valid to hold alternative views. when it comes to jupiter not being made of cheese i get why you would have contempt for people who disagree with you, but more of the free speech debate relates to the discussion of political and policy choices. when it comes to deciding how society should change, whether we should spend more on defence, whether immigration is too high or too low, whether tarrifs are good or bad etc etc, your views are just as subjective as anyone else's. you have no right to silence people you disagree with, however strongly you disagree, and they have no right to silence you. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:43 - Feb 15 with 1637 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:42 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
because you are not the public arbiter of truth. your views are, like everyone else's, views, and they are subjective.
debate and speech and evidence will show to the satisfaction of all but the brain dead that jupiter is not made of cheese.
you don't seem to have any notion of the subjectivity of your own views, or that it is valid to hold alternative views. when it comes to jupiter not being made of cheese i get why you would have contempt for people who disagree with you, but more of the free speech debate relates to the discussion of political and policy choices. when it comes to deciding how society should change, whether we should spend more on defence, whether immigration is too high or too low, whether tarrifs are good or bad etc etc, your views are just as subjective as anyone else's. you have no right to silence people you disagree with, however strongly you disagree, and they have no right to silence you. |
You appear to think that truth is subjective and that people who point out actual facts, or use logic, should defer and accept that people with opposing views not based on facts or reason, are equally valid.
Bollox. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:45 - Feb 15 with 1624 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:35 - Feb 15 by redrickstuhaart |
Defending human rights involves standing up for the rights of minorities rather than for the people wanting to restrict them. |
no, defending human rights involves standing up for all human rights. minorities have no higher status, it's not a game of top trumps. indeed, minorities rely on free speech just as much as anyone else. free speech is how you challenge power and stand up for everyone's rights. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:46 - Feb 15 with 1617 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:45 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
no, defending human rights involves standing up for all human rights. minorities have no higher status, it's not a game of top trumps. indeed, minorities rely on free speech just as much as anyone else. free speech is how you challenge power and stand up for everyone's rights. |
The rights of minorities are a subset of all human rights.
You keep speaking up for people actively shutting them down. Why is that? | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:51 - Feb 15 with 1600 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:43 - Feb 15 by redrickstuhaart |
You appear to think that truth is subjective and that people who point out actual facts, or use logic, should defer and accept that people with opposing views not based on facts or reason, are equally valid.
Bollox. |
speech is how you point out facts and speech is how you express logic. arguing with reason is likely to win you the argument. things like jupiter not being made of cheese are objective facts. but in political debate only a small proportion of what is discussed concerns objective 'facts' - and even then they need to be interpreted and applied. most of political debate rests on opinions. not realising that your opinions are subjective - believing that whatever you think is, by the virtue of you thinking it, facts and truth - is really not a good place to have reached. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:54 - Feb 15 with 1579 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:46 - Feb 15 by redrickstuhaart |
The rights of minorities are a subset of all human rights.
You keep speaking up for people actively shutting them down. Why is that? |
i'm defending free speech. the same human rights apply to everyone. particular groups have not been gifted additional rights. human rights are universal - agains subject to the limits laid down in law.
the only people on here seeking to 'shut down' any human rights are you and your clan. | |
| 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 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:57 - Feb 15 with 1562 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:54 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
i'm defending free speech. the same human rights apply to everyone. particular groups have not been gifted additional rights. human rights are universal - agains subject to the limits laid down in law.
the only people on here seeking to 'shut down' any human rights are you and your clan. |
No. You are arguing with people objecting to dangerous and deliberate lies, by claiming its about free speech. It isnt.
What "human right" do you suggest I wish to have shut down? You are making that up to justify a frankly alarming viewpoint. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:57 - Feb 15 with 1562 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:46 - Feb 15 by redrickstuhaart |
The rights of minorities are a subset of all human rights.
You keep speaking up for people actively shutting them down. Why is that? |
It's basically poundshop intellectualisation to justify and enable the current b/s propagated by Trump and his gofers.
History has shown us that all authoritarian leaders/dictators have needed enablers and people looking the other way in order to gain power.
We could all warble on about free speech while Trump and Putin trample over the national sovereignty of smaller nations.
Bizarre, misguided and ultimately dangerous |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:59 - Feb 15 with 1550 views | vapour_trail |
You’re all free to do what you wish, but I’d respectfully propose people stop engaging with the troll. It clearly wants you to keep going.
It is pointless.
This thread could do with dropping down the board. |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:04 - Feb 16 with 1507 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:57 - Feb 15 by reusersfreekicks |
It's basically poundshop intellectualisation to justify and enable the current b/s propagated by Trump and his gofers.
History has shown us that all authoritarian leaders/dictators have needed enablers and people looking the other way in order to gain power.
We could all warble on about free speech while Trump and Putin trample over the national sovereignty of smaller nations.
Bizarre, misguided and ultimately dangerous |
authoritarian leaders/dictators have all crushed free speech. putin has crushed free speech.
it's not "poundshop intellectualisation' - free speech is a fundamental human right , enshrined in the echr, upheld by the strassbourg court, and defended by the uk courts. you are rejecting all of that and putting yourself closer to putin and all of history's authoritarian leaders and dictators. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:07 - Feb 16 with 1472 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:59 - Feb 15 by vapour_trail |
You’re all free to do what you wish, but I’d respectfully propose people stop engaging with the troll. It clearly wants you to keep going.
It is pointless.
This thread could do with dropping down the board. |
you are repetitively abusive and seem to glory in bitterness and spite. what a very sad person you are. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:08 - Feb 16 with 1460 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:59 - Feb 15 by vapour_trail |
You’re all free to do what you wish, but I’d respectfully propose people stop engaging with the troll. It clearly wants you to keep going.
It is pointless.
This thread could do with dropping down the board. |
I hear you. Over and out. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:12 - Feb 16 with 1417 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:08 - Feb 16 by reusersfreekicks |
I hear you. Over and out. |
Agreed. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 01:19 - Feb 16 with 1334 views | Clapham_Junction |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 20:01 - Feb 15 by ford6600 |
Nato perhaps could look to Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Turkey for coordinated leadership to support Ukraine whilst the US is AWOL under Trump. With leverage, if Taiwan becomes an issue Europe will not support the US..against China..if the US abandons Ukraine. |
I would exclude Turkey from that list. Effectively a dictatorship for several years now and not unfriendly to Russia. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 03:47 - Feb 16 with 1256 views | Kropotkin123 |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:35 - Feb 15 by lowhouseblue |
again, there are limits to free speech laid down in law. they cover situations in which there is a conflict of rights. the legal position is established by articles 9 and 10 of the echr. no one's human rights are 'trampled on' by hearing something they disagree with or hearing something that offends them. even if you hear something that you know to be incorrect your human rights haven't been 'trampled on'.
the fact that the left on here support neither free speech or fundamental human rights is genuinely eye-opening. |
It's not the "left on here". You're arguing with a few people who have demonstrated opinions from the left and centre of politics. Stop aggrandizing it by turning it into a left vs right thing. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:37 - Feb 16 with 1097 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 03:47 - Feb 16 by Kropotkin123 |
It's not the "left on here". You're arguing with a few people who have demonstrated opinions from the left and centre of politics. Stop aggrandizing it by turning it into a left vs right thing. |
ok then, it's the shouty intolerant left on here who go around as a little gang, if that's clearer. but for me this thread has been genuinely eye-opening and a little bit scary. even if they don't represent anything more than their unique little gang, the narrow and intolerant thinking has surprised me. i clearly live in a very liberal bubble where free speech and debate are championed and no one questions the sway of the echr or the validity of a human rights based order. i'm used to the tories and farage wanting to draw back on the right to family life, but the right to freedom of belief and freedom of expression have always been sacrosanct. it's a very scary world we're heading towards. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:48 - Feb 16 with 1064 views | StokieBlue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:37 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
ok then, it's the shouty intolerant left on here who go around as a little gang, if that's clearer. but for me this thread has been genuinely eye-opening and a little bit scary. even if they don't represent anything more than their unique little gang, the narrow and intolerant thinking has surprised me. i clearly live in a very liberal bubble where free speech and debate are championed and no one questions the sway of the echr or the validity of a human rights based order. i'm used to the tories and farage wanting to draw back on the right to family life, but the right to freedom of belief and freedom of expression have always been sacrosanct. it's a very scary world we're heading towards. |
I think you've deliberately misinterpreted what people have written and are then using that to create a scenario which didn't exist.
People can say whatever they like, it's the implication that it carries equal weight and should not be dismissed that is nonsense. It's the fact that you think demonstrable falsehoods can be combatted with a reasonable debate where both sides respect the evidence and move with the evidence that is the incredible thing here.
The modern world of the last 10 years seems to have passed you by and you've completed ignore this context in all of your responses. All you have to do is look at the news over the past decade to see your premise no longer applies.
If you want a concrete example lets look at RJK Jr. He is a senior politician, he has all the evidence from experts that vaccines work (lets focus on C19 for this example) but he still lobbied to have it banned and replaced with Ivermectin treatments which are proven not to work and he was told this by respected scientists. He started with a false premise, was given evidence in a debate which shows his premise to be false yet he double-down on social media, gets more people to believe him even though they can see the evidence themselves and is now about to be in charge of US healthcare.
The examples are endless and you know this.
If you can't see that the context of your argument has changed in recent years then I don't know what more to say.
SB |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:15 - Feb 16 with 1008 views | DJR |
Interesting to note the examples about restrictions on free speech that Vance used in relation to the UK.
Here is the relevant part of his speech.
"And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britain in the crosshairs.
A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.
Not obstructing anyone. Not interacting with anyone. Just silently praying on his own.
After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply: “It was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before.”
Now, the officers were not moved.
Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new “buffer zone” law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility.
He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.
Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke—a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person.
But no.
This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called Safe Access Zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.
Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizen suspected guilty of thought crime.
In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat."
I would tend to look on buffer zones as more of a public order/medical confidentiality/conflicting rights issue, and even in the States legislation has been introduced to limit what can be done near abortion clinics following the 1993 killing of a doctor at an abortion clinic.
In any event, even if one says they give rise to a freedom of speech issues, such zones would be justified under Article 10 of the ECHR.
As it is, the Guardian fact-checked these claims and this is what they said: there is also a paywalled article in the Sunday Times with the headline "JD Vance falsely claims UK abortion buffer zones banprivate prayer".
Claim in relation to England
"Smith-Connor was convicted of breaching a safe zone in October last year, after refusing repeated requests to move away from outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth in November 2022.
The 51-year-old told the council the day before he would be carrying out a silent vigil as he had on previous occasions. On the day, a community officer spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes and asked him to leave – but he refused. Smith-Connor was handed a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay more than £9,000 costs after the case was brought by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.
Smith-Connor is receiving legal support from Alliance Defending Freedom International, an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that states it “champions religious freedom through … advocacy efforts”. ADF International said it would be supporting Smith-Connor to appeal against the decision in July.
Smith-Connor’s case was brought after a public space protection order was introduced outside the Bournemouth clinic in October 2022, which banned activity including protests, harassment and vigils.
Claim in relation to Scotland
"October last year saw the introduction of the Public Order Act 2023 in England and Wales, which introduced buffer zones of 150 metres around abortion clinics to stop women being harassed with leaflets, shown pictures of foetuses, or having to pass by vigils."
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act, introduced last year, introduced safe access zones within 200 metres of abortion clinics, banning harassing, alarming or distressing actions.
“Silent prayer” is listed among the banned activities to prevent mass silent vigils that have been used by large groups of US anti-abortion protesters such as 40 Days for Life who gather outside clinics to pressure women entering not to have an abortion.
A Conservative US TikToker erroneously claimed that silent prayer at home could break the law in Scotland. However the law states that the actions are banned if they are likely to cause alarm or distress to someone accessing abortion services. Silent prayer in a home which caused no distress and alarm to other would not fall under this category.
A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The vice-president’s claim is incorrect. Private prayer at home is not prohibited within safe access zones and no letter has ever suggested it was.”
As it is, I am a firm believer in free speech but I have no hesitation in criticising free speech which is inaccurate, and there is a large degree of hypocrisy going on here, because, whilst emphasising free speech, people like Trump and Vance seem to give scant regard to many other aspects of the liberal democracy the Age of Enlightenment gave rise to*. They also appear to be lacking in what I would regard as the sort of common decency that previous Presidents and Vice Presidents had.
*To take but one example, they both believe the 2020 election was stolen. [Post edited 16 Feb 10:38]
|  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:22 - Feb 16 with 975 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:48 - Feb 16 by StokieBlue |
I think you've deliberately misinterpreted what people have written and are then using that to create a scenario which didn't exist.
People can say whatever they like, it's the implication that it carries equal weight and should not be dismissed that is nonsense. It's the fact that you think demonstrable falsehoods can be combatted with a reasonable debate where both sides respect the evidence and move with the evidence that is the incredible thing here.
The modern world of the last 10 years seems to have passed you by and you've completed ignore this context in all of your responses. All you have to do is look at the news over the past decade to see your premise no longer applies.
If you want a concrete example lets look at RJK Jr. He is a senior politician, he has all the evidence from experts that vaccines work (lets focus on C19 for this example) but he still lobbied to have it banned and replaced with Ivermectin treatments which are proven not to work and he was told this by respected scientists. He started with a false premise, was given evidence in a debate which shows his premise to be false yet he double-down on social media, gets more people to believe him even though they can see the evidence themselves and is now about to be in charge of US healthcare.
The examples are endless and you know this.
If you can't see that the context of your argument has changed in recent years then I don't know what more to say.
SB |
Perfectly put.
Thank you SB | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:24 - Feb 16 with 964 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:48 - Feb 16 by StokieBlue |
I think you've deliberately misinterpreted what people have written and are then using that to create a scenario which didn't exist.
People can say whatever they like, it's the implication that it carries equal weight and should not be dismissed that is nonsense. It's the fact that you think demonstrable falsehoods can be combatted with a reasonable debate where both sides respect the evidence and move with the evidence that is the incredible thing here.
The modern world of the last 10 years seems to have passed you by and you've completed ignore this context in all of your responses. All you have to do is look at the news over the past decade to see your premise no longer applies.
If you want a concrete example lets look at RJK Jr. He is a senior politician, he has all the evidence from experts that vaccines work (lets focus on C19 for this example) but he still lobbied to have it banned and replaced with Ivermectin treatments which are proven not to work and he was told this by respected scientists. He started with a false premise, was given evidence in a debate which shows his premise to be false yet he double-down on social media, gets more people to believe him even though they can see the evidence themselves and is now about to be in charge of US healthcare.
The examples are endless and you know this.
If you can't see that the context of your argument has changed in recent years then I don't know what more to say.
SB |
"People can say whatever they like, it's the implication that it carries equal weight and should not be dismissed that is nonsense. It's the fact that you think demonstrable falsehoods can be combatted with a reasonable debate where both sides respect the evidence and move with the evidence that is the incredible thing here."
there is no implication whatsoever of equal weight. bad arguments should certainly be dismissed (but just silencing them isn't the way). there are good arguments and bad arguments, and good arguments can drive out falsehoods. debate and free expression are how that happens. what is symmetrical is that debates have two sides - and the two sides are usually held with equally strong conviction - but no one gets to rule on right and wrong without debate taking place. the fact that someone like you thinks they are always right doesn't give them any greater authority to determine the rules of the debate, or to exclude other viewpoints, than anyone else (who also is probably equally certain that they are right).
you keep trying to pretend that this is just about proven 'facts'. but the vast majority of political debate is centered around subjective opinions not facts - and even agreed facts can be seen to have varied implications. you are of course right about vaccines, but even facts are not as permanent as you imply. people were actually censored on social media for supporting the lab leak version of covid - and that is no longer dismissed as a fantasy. all sorts of certainties may also be proven false.
with rjk jr free speech is the means to challenge his views. we have yet to see what he will do in power - he can be constrained by demonstrating his falsehoods. he relies on support in congress and enough people in congress listen to scientists. but what otherwise is the alternative to combat him? he is in power and 60 years of US decisions by the supreme court to support free speech are not about to be reversed. and if you were to change the law to limit free speech it wouldn't just be used against him - at the moment under trump in all probability it would be used against people you do agree with. you need always to imagine oppressive free speech restrictions in the hands of your enemies.
also if his nonsense about vaccines does have public traction - if people are more willing to listen to him rather than what they see as establishment views - a good place to start would be in asking why. it's not just about him being on social media - there must be reasons why intelligent people seem receptive to his views. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:30 - Feb 16 with 929 views | StokieBlue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:24 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
"People can say whatever they like, it's the implication that it carries equal weight and should not be dismissed that is nonsense. It's the fact that you think demonstrable falsehoods can be combatted with a reasonable debate where both sides respect the evidence and move with the evidence that is the incredible thing here."
there is no implication whatsoever of equal weight. bad arguments should certainly be dismissed (but just silencing them isn't the way). there are good arguments and bad arguments, and good arguments can drive out falsehoods. debate and free expression are how that happens. what is symmetrical is that debates have two sides - and the two sides are usually held with equally strong conviction - but no one gets to rule on right and wrong without debate taking place. the fact that someone like you thinks they are always right doesn't give them any greater authority to determine the rules of the debate, or to exclude other viewpoints, than anyone else (who also is probably equally certain that they are right).
you keep trying to pretend that this is just about proven 'facts'. but the vast majority of political debate is centered around subjective opinions not facts - and even agreed facts can be seen to have varied implications. you are of course right about vaccines, but even facts are not as permanent as you imply. people were actually censored on social media for supporting the lab leak version of covid - and that is no longer dismissed as a fantasy. all sorts of certainties may also be proven false.
with rjk jr free speech is the means to challenge his views. we have yet to see what he will do in power - he can be constrained by demonstrating his falsehoods. he relies on support in congress and enough people in congress listen to scientists. but what otherwise is the alternative to combat him? he is in power and 60 years of US decisions by the supreme court to support free speech are not about to be reversed. and if you were to change the law to limit free speech it wouldn't just be used against him - at the moment under trump in all probability it would be used against people you do agree with. you need always to imagine oppressive free speech restrictions in the hands of your enemies.
also if his nonsense about vaccines does have public traction - if people are more willing to listen to him rather than what they see as establishment views - a good place to start would be in asking why. it's not just about him being on social media - there must be reasons why intelligent people seem receptive to his views. |
Why do you keep trying to pigeon hole a debate about free speech into one about political views? Your last paragraph ignores context yet again but I'm not going to go through it all again.
"the fact that someone like you thinks they are always right"
Had just about enough of this, that's the 3rd personal attack on me without justification in this thread. Always the same from your little cliché, once the debate gets a bit difficult you all resort to personal attacks.
SB | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:31 - Feb 16 with 916 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:15 - Feb 16 by DJR |
Interesting to note the examples about restrictions on free speech that Vance used in relation to the UK.
Here is the relevant part of his speech.
"And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britain in the crosshairs.
A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.
Not obstructing anyone. Not interacting with anyone. Just silently praying on his own.
After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply: “It was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before.”
Now, the officers were not moved.
Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new “buffer zone” law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility.
He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.
Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke—a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person.
But no.
This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called Safe Access Zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.
Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizen suspected guilty of thought crime.
In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat."
I would tend to look on buffer zones as more of a public order/medical confidentiality/conflicting rights issue, and even in the States legislation has been introduced to limit what can be done near abortion clinics following the 1993 killing of a doctor at an abortion clinic.
In any event, even if one says they give rise to a freedom of speech issues, such zones would be justified under Article 10 of the ECHR.
As it is, the Guardian fact-checked these claims and this is what they said: there is also a paywalled article in the Sunday Times with the headline "JD Vance falsely claims UK abortion buffer zones banprivate prayer".
Claim in relation to England
"Smith-Connor was convicted of breaching a safe zone in October last year, after refusing repeated requests to move away from outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth in November 2022.
The 51-year-old told the council the day before he would be carrying out a silent vigil as he had on previous occasions. On the day, a community officer spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes and asked him to leave – but he refused. Smith-Connor was handed a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay more than £9,000 costs after the case was brought by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.
Smith-Connor is receiving legal support from Alliance Defending Freedom International, an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that states it “champions religious freedom through … advocacy efforts”. ADF International said it would be supporting Smith-Connor to appeal against the decision in July.
Smith-Connor’s case was brought after a public space protection order was introduced outside the Bournemouth clinic in October 2022, which banned activity including protests, harassment and vigils.
Claim in relation to Scotland
"October last year saw the introduction of the Public Order Act 2023 in England and Wales, which introduced buffer zones of 150 metres around abortion clinics to stop women being harassed with leaflets, shown pictures of foetuses, or having to pass by vigils."
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act, introduced last year, introduced safe access zones within 200 metres of abortion clinics, banning harassing, alarming or distressing actions.
“Silent prayer” is listed among the banned activities to prevent mass silent vigils that have been used by large groups of US anti-abortion protesters such as 40 Days for Life who gather outside clinics to pressure women entering not to have an abortion.
A Conservative US TikToker erroneously claimed that silent prayer at home could break the law in Scotland. However the law states that the actions are banned if they are likely to cause alarm or distress to someone accessing abortion services. Silent prayer in a home which caused no distress and alarm to other would not fall under this category.
A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The vice-president’s claim is incorrect. Private prayer at home is not prohibited within safe access zones and no letter has ever suggested it was.”
As it is, I am a firm believer in free speech but I have no hesitation in criticising free speech which is inaccurate, and there is a large degree of hypocrisy going on here, because, whilst emphasising free speech, people like Trump and Vance seem to give scant regard to many other aspects of the liberal democracy the Age of Enlightenment gave rise to*. They also appear to be lacking in what I would regard as the sort of common decency that previous Presidents and Vice Presidents had.
*To take but one example, they both believe the 2020 election was stolen. [Post edited 16 Feb 10:38]
|
the buffer zone law is a perfect example of the fair application of articles 9 and 10. there is a conflict of rights - someone's free speech and right to protest v. someone else's right to access an essential service without fear of intimidation or threat or harassment. its is a geographically narrow restriction on free speech for a clear purpose and represents a proportionate response. people can still say whatever they like, within the law, outside of the buffer zone (or indeed within the buffer zone when it is not harassing or distressing others). so a limited and proportionate restriction for a clearly legitimate purpose. | |
| 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 |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:34 - Feb 16 with 895 views | redrickstuhaart |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 10:30 - Feb 16 by StokieBlue |
Why do you keep trying to pigeon hole a debate about free speech into one about political views? Your last paragraph ignores context yet again but I'm not going to go through it all again.
"the fact that someone like you thinks they are always right"
Had just about enough of this, that's the 3rd personal attack on me without justification in this thread. Always the same from your little cliché, once the debate gets a bit difficult you all resort to personal attacks.
SB |
He is trying to frame it as some debate about free speech, despite not a single person in this thread having said they support censorship. It is a way of distracting from and evading the actual points made.
Notably, despite claiming its just my "opinion", he still hasn't indicated why it is not a fact that Vance claimed that people in scotland have been warned about praying within their own homes near an abortion clinic, or why such rhetoric is not purposely divisive and dangerous... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
