The essential limits of free speech
In a perfect society freedom of speech should be limited for bullies and Nazis, to help the decent people. This is because they are just causing misery to millions of people, and do not care, so need to be limited. If they do not care the government needs to punish and restrict them, just as it resticted famines, after realising it was the only body that could beat these these calamities. I say that they should be limited and there is no doubt about that. The brilliance of free speech is that you can critisise the government and strong people, and authorities. It is not that you can be a bully or a thug, or humiliate others. It is not that you can cause people to be feel they are bad, or that they are terrible for the way they are or look, or act, or are not. It is not so you can ruin and humiliate other groups. The term free speech is a term that os short for what great people in the past wanted. We do NOT need free speech in every way. The term free speech was created by revolutionaries and idealists, who wanted a society whetre we could condemn the king, or the government, and not be jailed. Some seem to think it was created so anybody could say whatever insults they like, and that if people don;t like it then they can just accpt it, as if that is what humans evolved to be. If humans do not try and help eachother and sort these problems, out, then the probelms will continue, making certain people unhappy, and the ruthless people, who like offending people happy. That is not a society for humans, it is a society for a species that dies in millions, and never lasts, it is wrong. The fact is the first states to create free speech included the colonial states of America. The amazing thing aboit free speech was that they could critisise the government, and not be jailed for it. And they could be Jews, Catholic, or whatever, and not be forced to change their beliefs, that offended, and hurt nobody. At that time scumbags, and other morons, could bully and mock, in the press, Jews, Catholics, and Native Americans, and ask for wars to wipe out entire tribes, just for colonial means, and those thuings happened, as as the saying goes what the mind thinks, the body does, and the pen is mightier than the sword.
Some people today seem to think the term free speech shoul;d be a word, which just helps bullies. When a bully mocks any race, some Nazi says "freedom of speech" as if that was what the term was invented for, but if somebody of a other race says something bad, they are the first people to get angry, and follow the principle that hatred breeds hatred.Freedom of speech was not created for that, it was created as part of a society to make society better. If you are not interested in that, your ipinions are worthless and dangerous. People in the 17th century when Charles I was chopping people's ears off, and killing them by exposure for dissagreeing with him. at that time people could say any bullying stuff they liked about weaker people, Freedom of speech was not around, for condming the rulers but was against the weak, when it should have been the other way around.Surely society should be about trying to make society better off, not aimless aims for some old order or traditions. Surely if you have absolute freedom of speech, or anything, the bullies and slavers will oppress the decent, and evil will win. They will ensalve and humilaite the rest and make society rubbish. Surely we must restrict freedom of speech for bullies, by fines, jails, and more,
Surely those who say the state must not help, people's feelings are like those who said the state should not help those in famine. Or like US rightists who say they would like to ban guns but the constitution bars them from doing this, and then they ignore the constitution on small events. They are just doing it for a game not caring about others.
In modern and ancient society, people know that feeling osrry for people, is a great trick to make people support them. That is why everybody from aristocrats to public school pupils and "us white people" guys, and even homophobes are endlessly claiming in the media that they are persecuted.
Every few months the Nazi press claims that white people, or homophobes are being persecuted, so that the majority of people in this country who are white, and heterosexual, then feel they are a persecuted group and vote accordingly for Neo-Nazi policies. A classic example is the 2006 example, "poor persecuted nazis media game", is of the gay horse episode. Apparently this dumb bloke shouted abuse at a police officer on a horse, calling him gay. Everybody knows it was supposed to be a insult, he would not have said it if he did not mean it as a insult. The Nazis, will of course claim it was not meant as an inult, but he did, we know that in the real world, indeed most people who use that term have a horrible attitude towards gays, and at the same time claim they are not insulting by using the word, so then in the real world, not a make believe world where you give Nazis the benefit of the doubt, and let them jack boot all over you, his attitude was homophobic, ande abusive.
Of course the Nazi media then started claiming, that this meant all homophobes are being persecuted, and that just if you slightly critisise gays then everybody every heterosexual in the world is being arrested for that,
In actual fact gays are bullied in every town in Britain, probabaly the police are as homophobic as most people, and they are moaining about some moron being jailed for comitting a crime.
Now any Nazis reading this, will say, oh so I can't go around bullying gays, and heterosexuals calling random people insults that is against my right. Well actually that is partially a crime, to go around insulting starngers, And the biggest crime, and what he was arrested for was that you can not insult police offciers. But do the Nazis, moan about not being allowed to insult police offciers, of course not, they would like a situation, where police officers as now, bash people against walls for saying hello, (stupid thing to say to them but I heard that happened to somebody, and the Nazis press did not even slightly get unhappy about that. They would like a situation where police can do that, and arrest people for any insult. Unless the insult is against a gay officer or a ethnic minority officer. They belive in freedom of speech purely so they can bully as that is the only joy in their lives, making kids kill thesmselves as they are being bullie. Some say sticks and stones may brake your bones but names will never hurt you, but in reality, if some guy is insulting you all the time it makes you go mad, and the reason why they are doing it normally is that they are in a strong posistion, and like to feel strong. Its all fair and well saying stand up for yourself, but the fact is that in the real world, most ways of doing that are very difficlut, for instance peer pressure in saying do not tell, feelings of humiliation that you have not thought back yourself, and the biggest of all, lack of people believing you, and of course the fact is in many occasions it is allot of people attacking. Yes ther are examples of fighting back versus bullying, and racism, but not always. Surely we should use all the ways we can of getting back at bullies, and racists and nazis, are among the main ones. They are so obvious in the way they do not care about certain groups of people, so probably do not care full stop. Liek those right wing commentators, who spend half their time moaning about people they call "poor whites" being treated worse than poorer ethnic minority districts, then the rest campaigning for those same areas, to have lower wages via a lower mininum wage, lower pensions, and trying to end state funded education's main parts. It just shows they don't care, and are evil.
So as I say, if you have a racist saying something, like that scumbag on the BBC police programme who said he wanted to beat up Asians, surely that he should be jailed, or die in a Gulag, Surely if in this world it is ok to jail people for petty theft (I think it ok to jail them for that, even if many do not), and lots of other minor crimes, surely it is ok to jail somebody for showing and saying what he feels, what he thinks about other human beings. I would have this for all people, jail all thugs of all races for being racists, or evil. Surely if somebody is launching a skin cralwing campaign to persecute a group of innocent people, then that person deserves punishment. Surely what matters as JFK and all the decent anti-racists said, is wether a person is good or not, and if somebody hates that person even if they are trying to be good, and wants to treat that person really low, and unfair, then they need to be investigated, and if they are really like this, and it is not just for show, whatever race they are, they need punishment, far more than most crime
Another reason for restricting freedom of speech for bullies, is that they add to hate, hate breeds hatred, look at Ultser, the way that Protestants extremists ran so much anti-Catholic propaganda in the 1920s onwards, split society and saw the land massively hurt by war in the 1960-90s. If somebody had just made them, not say things like not letting Catholics work in their parliament building, and in loads of places, and saying unfair stuff abou them, the dead people from that war would not have occurred. There were also 10s of deaths in Britain in that era as of racist killings, and allot of misery.
I am a great supporter of free speech, but free speech should be about allowing people to critisise the strong without being atacked. The thing I hate about it when the NAZI press go on about their version of free speech, Is that they always say "free speech" in a tone of voice that it make it sound as if they are some great preacher, sorting out a argument between two warring sides, and that both sides are now sobbing as of their great argument, In actual fact they are ALLLLLWAYS ALLWAYS ALWAYS, SAYING IT AS THEY are about to say some pro bullying crap, about some group they are not in, and it can be anybody anybody at all, but normally they are looking at the time to be regarded as the white persecuted majority, persecuted by liberals, and socialists who half the time are called powerless, then are blamed for all the world's problems. This is the tactic used by the Republican Party in the US where the party wins votes by telling white, Christains they are persecuted, and usually the majority group. So then they have a majority and so can persecute the rest. And they change this argument in states or places where that is not the case, their allies in the Muslim world, do it for Muslims, and their allies in the Jewish world, for Jews, and Hindus, Apparently they are all persecuted, but they are not, they are just bullies, trying to win votes.
I bet if I said this in a debate, some scumbag in the audience would say some insult about me, and laugh to himself, and say I should be allowed to say that. Then I would call him some terrible name, and he would then crack and go mad, and attack me, and then we would both be jailed, as he was so horrid as he wanted to show his so called bravery of insulting a innocent weaker person, and then being humiliated.
The people who say free speech should be about insulting people, are just peeople for whom it never harms much, But whenever it does harm them they always crack down. For instance look at the US, in there they allowed the KKK, to do whatever it liked for ages, but they only ruined it when they carcked down on it. Areas that did not, let them do it, but cracked down on peace protestors, lefties, and socialists. With the fact of there being soem 10s of assasinations, which may have been their other strategy,. The main fighter against racism, in the US was aliberal media, not allowing Nazis, opinions, if thjey had America would be as racist today as in the 1960s. Surely we need to crack down on bullies of all sorts even racists. And look at these people who said we must allow Nazi opinions to have their freedom, the fact is that they ban left wing stuff straight away. Like look at Walt Disney withdrawing funding of Micheal Moore, as he disagreed with the their president, and in America the Republican Party chucking a programme about Reagan that was critical of him off the TV, and banning socialist press and German press in world war one, and all this. They restrict free press, they fear, or recognise the fears of everybody but never when it scares others. Look at BRITAIN, the Tories trying to ban Death on the rock, in the 80s, or sypcatcher as it talked of a coup attempt by Nazis, in MI5 to oust Harold wilson, and that was going to kill a million British people (my guess), as happened in Indonesia, in the 1960s. Look at them.
THe week a far right troublemaker was let off for trying to ferment race hatred and so race war, the Nazis press was saying let him spaak let him speak, we must never infringe free speech even though if you got power, he would cause mass deaths and civil war, and terrifying chaos. The next week some Islamic extremists say they want to plant bombs, and of course these hypocrits start claiming that these people should be jailed. And some of them are actually jailed for 7 years, and the hypocrits still claim that this shows that racists anre being persecuted, and that Islamic extremists are being allowed to say anything.
The only reason they were allowed to say these things around the Danish embassy was that traditionally loads of protests have said as lethal things as this, and so the police let them off. I remember seeing death threat placards in the foot and mouth protests about certain people, but nobody was arrested as it was felt this was just high spirits. Till the killing a few tears ago by a Islamist of a film maker in the Netherlands, and September the eleventh, most people did not realise that Islamic extremists really would kill, they just seemed like mad people. Then it was thought just to be like somebody saying "oh I could kill him", and loads of protests had violent statements before then, I am sure of that, it is only now we realise that many of the Islamist ones actually mean it. Lets face it, unless you were in the CIA, and knew how ruthless these terrorists were, or were a very avid news watcher most would not have realised how serious these people were. It was only after those events that most realised what a threat they were so since then the left have been trying to get terrorists like this arrested, If we obeyed the right wing version of freedom of speech we would be allowing them to say what they want.
When I say most people did not realise how ruthless the terrorists were before 2001, lets face it that is true. The fact is up to then singular Nazis in the US had killed more than Islamist billionaire terrorists in the US, and still if you include lynching have killed more than them across US history. Upto then the most serious action by a Islamist in Britain was probabaly burning a picture, and only recently nail bombing racists and racist thugs had killed 10s of people in the 1990s, in racist killings, and terror bombs to little public attention. At that time, upto 2001, ALL racists were so ignorant of the terrorists, that they made NO STATEMent. ABOUT, instead their main raciast campaigns were about black people, and Jews. And in a few decades they will probabaly be back to black and jew baiting.
I have to admit I supported Clinton's bombing of Aghanistan in the late 1990s, as I am a genius, and I said to myself, but surely if you do not deal with people trying to do this to you, they could plan to do anythinjg to you,
It is my view, that what we need is free speech, but withinm limits,.
Bullies hould not be allowed to make people mad, and kill themselves, or die youinger as they feel they are bad as the inults they hacve been given by scumbags,
Racists should not be allowed to be racists.
And Jihadists should notr be allowed to spread encouragement of terrotisms,
And any other evils like that, from people who want absolutre monarchy back, to people who want coups that will kill millions of lefties.
P.S the real crime is that British agents who supported the coup tries against Harold Wilson, and the coup in Indoesnia, were NEVER JAILED for their 1million dead in Indonesia campaigns.
If the elite want something banned, they pull it off the air, like That was the week that was in the 1960s, like Greg Dyke in the 2000s. If they want their view purported like not banning fox hunting, that view fills the airwaves, or building nuclear power stations. Surely our society should be about making society better.
We do not and never shall have total freedom of speech, and never will. The right wingers who call for it, never want it totally, They do not want the rigght to name MI5 agents in Moscow, they do not want the right to leak government secrets, they do not want the right to shout abuse at police officers. They do not want the right to shout fire in a crowded cinema, causing deaths (unless they are psycopaths, but I would nlot put it past them doing the last of these to kids, as they want to show how brave and corages they are for free speech, that they would be prepared for others to die for their right to say anything, but do not want to threaten themselves, and bigger people, they do not want to name local gangsters, before they are tried, they do not go upto big thugs and insult them to their face,then say I will face the consequeces (they probabaly do to shorter people), they do not ask to be invited to a rangers match and shout for celtic , and shout abuse at rangers, in Rangers pubs, they do not do these things, as they are cowards, and they acre abou themselves.
They will restrict free speecvh whenever it harms them, from banning the Germ,an press in WW1 in America, to banning real threats in the Falklands war, like mentiojing of how many planes there were. And especially if it is suicide bombers who threaten them. Some even want us to not mention if British soldiers are beating up Iraqis, or Americans are, as it will endanger their security, not realsing if we did not know about these things, they would get even more severe, and nobody would try andsort out, the things,. Tht is exactly what freedom of speech is for. To questionm the strong, those who have the control over us, a whip hand as Georghe Orwell would say,. It stosp them having it, and we become free.
Like in Canada, in the 1990s, some Canadian paratroopers killed and ate some people in Mozambique, the army would have been to embaressed to do anything about it. The media, talked of this, and so the national leaders knew about it, and felt they had to do something about it, and ended that evil regiment, so relied on regiments who were not infrect with evil beliefs. If we did not have a free press talking of things like that our British army may degenerate to that bad a situation. Lets face uit without a free press the army could have covered it up, by journalists fear, and the state could have even if found out, juist done tiny things, and concentrated on other things, so still today their would be cannibals in the Canadian army, perhaps taking their cannibalism back to Canada and eating decent soldiers, and others.
As I say,
But the right do not want free speech to be restrict racists who may cause another 38million dead war like world war two, or kill millions of innocent people, or 1million dead Irish famine, as racists want the world to not care about others, They do not care about others.
I say restrict free speech to help society, sometimes we wil need to in rare wars like ww2, BUT even then only a bit,
I say have free speech to critsise the strong, like the army, the police, politicians, monarchs, leaders, business men, the styrong, gangsters, criniimal;s, to a extent su all, evenm religon,
But not just to hate these groups, or just hate certain minorities,
I say the Holocaust was worse than suicide bombers, my feelings and everybody's feeling matter,
And I know which is what should be restricted, the most.
If you have no heart, feel sorry for the fervants racists, if you have care about people OTHER than yourself.
Some say I would like to be able to say anything about anybody,
If that us your view, you do not care if people, vulnerable, or non-vulnerable, kill themselves as of you,
So you are evil and should be igored forever.
It's like I was watching Question Time, today, Loads of the audience were saying how they think it should be legal to deny the Holocaust in Germany, and were saying apparently "debating" will win, Come on debating, DEBATING DIOD NOT WIN IN 1932, Surely lets face it the fact the Nazis, were elected is a massive debvastating argument against why racism, should be resricted by democracies. Then the UKIP, the British far right party, claimed you should be allowed to deny the Holocaust, and then said that mad lunatics who stand outside embassies saying kill this fellow kill that fellow, should be jailed. Lets face it surely denying the Holocaust is far more a case of inciting violence than standing outside a embassy. Surely it is as if you deny the Holocaust, then you are claiming a regime thats main belief was "war is good", and "war is natural" (i.e millions of deaths), that certain groups should be wiped out, and that they actually did this, is far more incitement to violence than standing outside a embassy with a placard. Lets face it, this is a cae of people in ivory towers, saying they bleive in free speech to offend people they do not care about, but do not for people who area real threat to them. When push comes to shuv they find a KKK, or somthing to shut up their threats. But they always try and let their pals, the Nazis say WHATAVER THE LIKE,
Ukip ARE ONE OF THESE FAR RIGHT PARTIES, that say Holocaust denial should not be illegal as "you can't" start restricting free speech. Then they restrict free speech whenever it suits them, whenever they feel threatened, apparently we should only restrict free speech when it threatens them. I.E incitement to violence against them, should be illegala, but not incitement to violence from their groups.
I say we can have laws about the Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers, claim they are being arrested for a "thought crime", but they support parties that want to ban certain people for their religous, beliefs from doing certain things, or sexualities, or races, which they feel they need to do. Holocaust deniers are criminals, far more than somebody who parks on a yellow line, you could say, or far better than that, you could say all crimes are thought crimes.
They also then claim surely if you make Holocaust denial a crime, then you have to make all evil thing deniers crimes. Well the difference is that they do not figure much in the public imagination. And it does not matter if somebody denies the 1347 black death, or the massacres by Ghenghis Khan, as not many people know about it. Surely in places where it does matter, then it does recieve punishment.And in most places it does not matter that much, and the medias can do the punishing, but in some plaes the fear is bigger and it needs criminal punishment. For instance Ireland does not need to arrest people who deny the Irsh famine, as the media will get angry at people who do. But Germany does as it's nationalists will be more inclined to think all their regimes were good, and want to belive their 1940s regimes were not bad. And if they are not restricted surely as in Japan they will resurface, and overtime, people will claim the Nazis were not bad, and so this useful lesson of history will end, and race wars and national fighting shall be just accepted.
You may say, well the people will decide. But thats what happened in 1933 in Germany. Surely the fact is that democracy is the best system, but it also needs to have things that attack undemocratic elements. If you just lose the debate for one year against a Nazi, they will use that to takeover and kill millions. That is not good enough to these ivory tower, "lets have free speech for nazis" people in any other event. They do not accept second best I am sure in sports, or anything, so why accept utter disaster in anything else. The fact is that if you lose just for 1 year to a Nazi they takeover and abolish free speech, you can not have that.
Surely history shows the only way you beat far right movements is by restricting them. In Britain and Sweden in the 1930s, they were banned from having uniforms, this surely was right as it stopped their feudal way of becoming a army. Surely it is also right to resriict their views, as they want to stir ancient hatreds between nations, using nationalism a very poweful force for worthless means. I do not want to say what they should be allowed to say, as there are enough people arguing for what they should be allowed to say. I say they should be restricted from saying certain things, and poo pooed for saying less serious things.
I think I have put forward the case well for why the correct policy should be held. There is no doubt a fair person will agree, and people who only care about thesmselves, and not what matters in democarcy, which is all nice people, (not scumbags who insult strangers,, they are useless people).
The groups who oppose this view, are normally scum, like the kind of people who hate hearing other people moan, about being bullied, (I said that as it is true) but then spend their entire day moaning about minor traffic cones,
Or it is people who have been fooled, or Nazis, and members of the elite who are essentially Von Papen style people, in their beliefs.
The other argument for banning Holocaust denial is that the teaching about the Holocaust to people, helps people realise racism, is wrong. Surely this is a message that helps the world allot, if people had been taught this lesson earlier it would hvae svaed many people, and helped the economy. The reason why the Holoacust is the best to show this is that it was probabaly the biggest mass killing deliberate attempt to wipe out a race in a short period ever. Plus it also killed many other races, so can be used to show racism, is bad against al people. As part of the education process of that, we can also add in other genocides. I would say the world needs a genocide and war and poverty day, to tell us these histories, and every year it can be a different 8 genocides to talk of focussing on royal then far right then left wing, in order of importanmce. The far right being worst. This can teach people, through history that racism, is wrong, and that all nations should be pals, and to encorage equality and such, and democracy. History is a powerful source, it tells people what nationality they are, and look how nationalistic we all are. Surely history should be used to encourage a better society just like health service, cooking, and everything, Make things better.
The thing about the Holocaust is that it happened to international peoples, and lots of people, so it was more likley to remembered than other genocides. This should be used to make us remember that bad things happen. Other genocides are not rwemembered as much as they normally are isolated to a event that did not affect all nations that much. World War Two afefcted every nation in the world, to a large extent everywhere from Chile, which saw changes in US policy towards it as of it's European immigrant populations, too Tibet which saw it used by the US army, decreasing it's isolation. The Holocaust was the first tinme a group of people told the whole world about their suffering, and although yes every group tries do this, this trime it could be used by people in tandem, to fight racism. This is succsful in Europe, North America, and actually the whole world. It helps fight homophobia, bullying and loads of evils.
Also the holocasut was far worse than what happened underthe Soviets as it was so clinical and deliberate, and unfair, and was the worst thing of the century, mabye history as the regime was a turn back from a nice utopian welfare state loving Weimar Republic, too something uncomprabale in the century.
I think the fact so many of us call people Nazis, and facists as an insult is good, as it shows we are axcceopting liberal beliefs. Idf we did not talk about that then we would shift to racism, and far right anti-Comie ways. The same way American history talk of the US civil war, and war of independence , and the Brits talk of the Battle of Britain, the world's history memory should be world war two and the holocaust. That is why Socialists are to be commended when they call people who are doing bad, Nazis.
I say we should restrict certain apects of freedom of speech from racism, to bullying, and paedophilia.
As I say the racists if they do not mind hurting and offending people should be afraid to say what they say, just as they should be afraid to kill people, or injure people, if they are not well trained enough to not
100s of Websites http://www.lonympics.co.uk/
Our pro Political Correctness website
Free speech 2, some more stuff
A Great index of Comedy & joke sites, 100s of jokes, are 1 click away,