Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

BridgyDids said:
As a chap, who is definitely not on the side of Yaxley-Lennon, and is only on the side of “absolute freedom of speech”, is there anything you would be offended by being said?
Click to expand...
I’m sure he’d change his fucking mind if a paedo was stood outside his house with a megaphone telling everyone that it’s ok to sexually abuse kids. I doubt he’d be coming out with “it’s only words” in that instance.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Enjoy the ride! By your definition, there’s hate speech on here every fucking day!

You don’t need a cell provided to you by the State, you’ve built your own!
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say hate speech is something that should be excluded from what can be said. What constitutes hate is subjective and people should be allowed to hate something, someone or some group as much as they should be allowed to like them. Being offended by something is a choice, everyone can choose not to be offended.

However, what people shouldn’t be able to do is spread misinformation about who they hate, slander them or incite violence against them. That’s where hate becomes harm. People should have protections against being harmed, there should be no freedoms to incite it through speech.
 
meltonblue said:
As does the writer/sayer.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Communication is simply a sender, transmission medium and a receiver. The interpretation of the message falls solely on the receiver.

**** and **** can mean the same thing at the same time, two different things at two different times and two different things at the same time. As the receiver, one gives it meaning and thus its power.

You could call me **** all day. It wouldn’t matter one iota. My best friend could say it once and I give it entirely different meaning, gravity, and mind space. It’s simply a word, and I give it its heft, no matter how hard to try to impose YOUR heft on it.
 
Last edited:
BridgyDids said:
So slander / libel isn’t a thing for you then?
Click to expand...
It absolutely is, but one has the freedom to walk that tightrope, if one so chooses.

Society has decided there is harmful, known, intentional, personal denigration that can create material damage to someone. We legislate against it.

Calling someone a pedo is different than saying they’re a rum ****. Materially different. We have legislation for that, because you are causing material harm. The effect of the word is known, understood and recognized to imply the person is a serious criminal, specifically because of a serious societal crime. If they’re not, in reality, then that is a big problem.
 
.db. said:
However, what people shouldn’t be able to do is spread misinformation about who they hate, slander them or incite violence against them. That’s where hate becomes harm. People should have protections against being harmed, there should be no freedoms to incite it through speech.
Click to expand...
There is a very fine line hidden in those words, because you cite a legal term which already constitutes an offense.

Beyond slander, however, the ability to “incite violence” through words is a very tenuous one. I could say the same thing to two different people and they might react totally differently. One might shrug, the other fight to the death. Ergo, it’s a sticky wicket what words you’re going to capture with the word “incite,” which is, itself, an inciteful word!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
I disagree. Communication is simply a sender, transmission medium and a receiver. The interpretation of the message falls solely on the receiver.

**** and **** can mean the same thing at the same time, two different things at two different times and two different things at the same time. As the receiver, one gives it meaning and thus its power.

You could call me **** all day. It wouldn’t matter one iota. My best friend could say it once and I give it entirely different meaning, gravity, and mind space. It’s simply a word, and I give it its heft, no matter how hard to try to impose YOUR heft on it.
Click to expand...

The interpretation does fall on the receiver but that absolves the sender of any influence, which is clearly ridiculous, as your last paragraph demonstrates in one of its most simplistic terms and is a very good example. Extrapolate that thought process out and then it becomes clear why freedom of speech always has to come with guardrails, particularly when the lines between facts and opinions are blurred.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
The interpretation does fall on the receiver but that absolves the sender of any influence, which is clearly ridiculous, as your last paragraph demonstrates in one of its most simplistic terms and is a very good example. Extrapolate that thought process out and then it becomes clear why freedom of speech always has to come with guardrails, particularly when the lines between facts and opinions are blurred.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a bad medium to try to discuss this, but I agree that the sender HAS influence, but not control.

If I come up to you and whisper “****” in your ear and laugh, you might interpret that differently than me stomping up to you, screaming it in your face and standing there looking at you expectantly.

However, it is up to YOU to determine your actions to BOTH messages…separate and distinct from the addition of “facts and opinion being blurred” being added at the end.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Again, this is a bad medium to try to discuss this, but I agree that the sender HAS influence, but not control.

If I come up to you and whisper “****” in your ear and laugh, you might interpret that differently than me stomping up to you, screaming it in your face and standing there looking at you expectantly.

However, it is up to YOU to determine your actions to BOTH messages…separate and distinct from the addition of “facts and opinion being blurred” being added at the end.
Click to expand...

They can have both, clearly.

On your second point, yes, of course I will. The same words have entirely different meanings and context based on the other factors involved too. To take that further, do you think that harassment shouldn’t be a crime if it’s just verbal?

On your last paragraph, it isn’t separate at all, that’s the issue. You’re just saying you’re happy to allow that to happen.
 
Last edited:
Bluesince1979 said:
Silly comparison
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. He said that people should be free to say what they want without comeback. I gave one example where I guarantee he’d change his mind. I could give plenty of others too. There’s a difference between free speech and hate speech and there absolutely should be laws around hate speech. People can bang on about “hurty words” all they want but there have been instances of people committing suicide off the back of so-called “hurty words”. That’s no laughing matter.
 
M18CTID said:
No it isn’t. He said that people should be free to say what they want without comeback. I gave one example where I guarantee he’d change his mind. I could give plenty of others too. There’s a difference between free speech and hate speech and there absolutely should be laws around hate speech. People can bang on about “hurty words” all they want but there have been instances of people committing suicide off the back of so-called “hurty words”. That’s no laughing matter.
Click to expand...
Friend of mine was banned from City for abusing a City pplayer with the 'N' word.
His 'legal expert' mate claimed the word was in the dictionary so can't be illegal/offensive. He changed his tune when i called him a paedophile.
 
M18CTID said:
I’m sure he’d change his fucking mind if a paedo was stood outside his house with a megaphone telling everyone that it’s ok to sexually abuse kids. I doubt he’d be coming out with “it’s only words” in that instance.
Click to expand...
I doubt I’d need to say a word or take any action, don’t you?!
 
stonerblue said:
Friend of mine was banned from City for abusing a City pplayer with the 'N' word.
His 'legal expert' mate claimed the word was in the dictionary so can't be illegal/offensive. He changed his tune when i called him a paedophile.
Click to expand...
Slur versus slander, no?
 
M18CTID said:
No it isn’t. He said that people should be free to say what they want without comeback.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. Indeed, even 1A doesn’t allow that, as there are exceptions to complete freedom of speech. But, it seems like everyone is fine with curtailing the free speech of people they don’t like, which is a slippery slope.
M18CTID said:
I gave one example where I guarantee he’d change his mind.
Click to expand...
Yet I didn’t. Quandary, huh?!

M18CTID said:
I could give plenty of others too.
Click to expand...
I hope they’re better than your “guarantee” above!

M18CTID said:
There’s a difference between free speech and hate speech and there absolutely should be laws around hate speech.
Click to expand...
The problems with such laws are that the deciders constantly change and the list only gets bigger, never smaller.

M18CTID said:
People can bang on about “hurty words” all they want but there have been instances of people committing suicide off the back of so-called “hurty words”. That’s no laughing matter.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but there is always much more to someone committing suicide than a “hurty word.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top