Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

ChicagoBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, Do you feel Alex Jones should have been let off in the name of freedom of speech for spreading false claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax ?
 
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...
Nuclear?
 
meltonblue said:
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?
Click to expand...
It’s not the words that constitute the harassment, though, is it? It’s the persistence that makes it harassment.
meltonblue said:
The interpretation does fall on the receiver but that absolves the sender of any influence, which is clearly ridiculous,
Click to expand...
Again with the soft touchy feely words.
It doesn’t absolve the sender of anything, but what is “influence”?!

“Oh, he’s a bad influence!” On what? Why? In whose book?! It’s a nonsense word in this discussion. Every word has some influence on the receiver, but that shouldn’t be transferred onto the sender, because every person reacts differently to every word, especially fringe terms.

Some people get triggered, offended, find them off putting, while other people barely even notice such reactions, because their experience has been completely different!!!
meltonblue said:
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...
We are talking about different things now. Even the police can lie to you!!!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the 1st Amendment then? (Assuming that is what 1A stands for)
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Nonce
Nincompoop
Nutter
‘Nana
Numpty
Nobhead
Namby pamby
‘Nad
Numb Nuts

Pick your poison, because if ANYONE even MIGHT be offended by ANY of them, maybe they go on the list!!
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was an overly subtle joke. Was referencing Trump banging on the other week about how he can't say two n-words, one of them being nuclear.
 
What’s funny is there are a handful of people arguing the toss, yet you all seem to have different grievances over different aspects, and who gets offended, why that’s wrong, and what if it’s harassment, and, and, and…

There are already laws that address half of these things, but I maintain that, with very few known and agreed exceptions, freedom of speech should be almost limitless. You might get offended by a word or two, or their context, or their very personal meaning TO YOU, but none of those things should matter to the ability to be heard, regardless of what you want to say.



Note the author.

IMG_2391.jpeg
 
bluejon said:
To be fair, that was an overly subtle joke. Was referencing Trump banging on the other week about how he can't say two n-words, one of them being nuclear.
Click to expand...
My bad. Been traveling and getting my news in digest form through Apple, CNBC, CNN, NYT & The Telegraph and didn’t see that.

I’ll bet my life savings he has more trouble saying nuclear!!!
 
stonerblue said:
Maybe, but that's not the point I was making.
Click to expand...
My point is that one is already codified in law as illegal, not because of the use of the word, but because of what the word says, which is a known lie designed to harm. We already don’t allow that.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
My bad. Been traveling and getting my news in digest form through Apple, CNBC, CNN, NYT & The Telegraph and didn’t see that.

I’ll bet my life savings he has more trouble saying nuclear!!!
Click to expand...
This is worth watching. It's from the clown show Trump and Hesgeth ran in front of the US generals.

 
ChicagoBlue said:
It’s not the words that constitute the harassment, though, is it? It’s the persistence that makes it harassment.

Again with the soft touchy feely words.
It doesn’t absolve the sender of anything, but what is “influence”?!

“Oh, he’s a bad influence!” On what? Why? In whose book?! It’s a nonsense word in this discussion. Every word has some influence on the receiver, but that shouldn’t be transferred onto the sender, because every person reacts differently to every word, especially fringe terms.

Some people get triggered, offended, find them off putting, while other people barely even notice such reactions, because their experience has been completely different!!!

We are talking about different things now. Even the police can lie to you!!!
Click to expand...

It’s both.

I’m not sure how “influence” is a soft touchy word, if I say something to you then I clearly have influence over what you’re receiving. I can use those words, in your view, in anyway I want and those words can be anything I want and I’m blameless of their impact.
 
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