IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Free speech
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
If people don't know why Alex Jones bovver boy Watson is a creep they are just not looking hard enough (and I'm not wasting my time on him).
Why he would even enter into any discussion on "free speech" is a mystery. He's part of the problem..a minor part..but quite an effective one in aiding the nobbling of "free speech" & propagating fantasy for evil intent.
Why have people only just discovered free speech is under fire?. It has been for several decades now as a handful of media moguls have consolidated the media in the UK, USA and Australia into a right-wing conglomerate that thinks and acts as one.
Murdoch is a prime example who has nobbled free speech in the way he and his mass media which reaches into every corner of the world (except China which told him to piss off) have crafted basically an "alternative reality" that is pretty bloody evident except to Blind Freddy.
Murdoch has backed every successful government in the UK for the last 40 years. He has decided who rules the UK, USA and Australia although that power is under threat with the advent of (love or loathe him) a Jeremy Corbyn.
Murdoch (and the handful of similar) decide what "free speech" is to be published to the masses. It's so bad now the BBC has become a parody of what it was and plays catch-up to the gutter media (but with far more style).
While Goebbels was the creator of modern propaganda (and I reckon of public relations as well) it's advanced rapidly into ways we can't keep up with.
When a handful of moguls control the media they tell you what is the news, what is important and basically what to think (Corbyn is a Red Spy- last week).
It could be probably summed up by JK's term "A Good Story". That's what you get and that's all you get.
This has been tempered with the rise of Social Media which caught the mass & old media off guard but social media now has collapsed into a pit of lies that are propagated & recycled endlessly in the hands of clever bastards (Alex Jones & Pizzagate but a 1000 more such tales) which freezes out the real news we need to know.
So you still have Free Speech..anyone can now have a voice via the Internet which is where all the real news comes from (much of it phony) but that Free Speech is meaningless because half the planet has no idea what the truth really is.
The Village Gossip or the nasty little woman/man who sent out Poison Pen Letters to all in the village now have a World Wide Audience via the net. And they have a dire effect. People go to jail. No nobbling of Free Speech there.
To again use Noam Chomsky's statement which sums it up : "one must admire the incredible skills the media have in manipulating the population. They managed to convince many that the most passionate anti-racist of the last 40 years-Jeremy Corbyn is actually pro-racist & anti-Semitic"
# this isn't about Corbyn but it's a true and obvious comment on the power of media moguls today (and for the last 40-50 years)and how they have no shame and an absolute gall to perpetuate such propaganda.
You have Free Speech..you have it more than you ever did. The Internet where 90% of people now get their information / news from is a bastion of Free Speech for every person on the planet.
People have been exercising their free speech ever since the internet arrived. The lack of it is not your problem. The real problem is plain old Propaganda has been refined for the current era where fabrications drown out the Truth.
The problem is truth has been submerged, fiddled with and turned into the opposite.
Paul Joseph Watson is just vile propagator of lies and ludicrous conspiracies theories that crowd out the truth. Just a small cog in the wheel but a cog nonetheless.
But the very notion such a small cog could somehow even enter into a discussion on "free speech" really shows how effective the propaganda has become with it's millions of trolls on the planet who repeat Ad infinitum his & other's lies. |
|
Randall |
Brian R. wrote:
Peter E. responds to Hedda
It’s not immediately obvious to me that Paul Joseph Watson is an “odious little creep†or that Spiked-online is a “ludicrous faux-libertarian websiteâ€, largely because I don’t personally know Mr Watson and I have no evidence that Spiked is orchestrating some kind of deviously authoritarian sub-agenda. Perhaps such evidence exists somewhere, but it doesn’t seem to me to be present in any credible way in the public sphere. For all I know, Watson may love David Hare plays or Carol Ann Duffy poems, which would certainly make him an odious little creep in my book. But I don’t know that, so I’ll leave it aside as a consideration. I can only judge him on his public utterances, and I think he’s pretty sound on the issue of free speech, even if he’s prone to the occasional injudicious overstatement. The same applies to Spiked.
I’m not, I hasten to say, claiming that I’m right. But the only way that I know of that I can be corrected if I’m mistaken is through the free exchange of words with other people. People who don’t try to shut down free debate by pre-emptively hissing “sexist!â€, “racist!â€, “fascist†or accusing their interlocutors of one the new hard-Left thought crimes such as “transphobia.â€
When intersectionalists claim that free speech isn’t as important as the right not to be offended, it seems to me that they’re gratuitously confecting a fake right that doesn’t formally exist. As Professor Jordan Peterson put it in his Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman when he made this point: in order to be able to think truthfully, you have to risk offending people. And there’s no one more expert at taking incendiary offence than the postmodern-intersectionalist Left, who are clearly highly adept at orchestrating social media mobs to frighten people away from speaking freely and truthfully, or risk irrecoverable reputational damage if they do.
Whatever we might think of PJW, Spiked or the Murdoch dynasty, this can’t be good. There’s a meme in circulation that was perhaps wrongly attributed to Teddy Roosevelt but is nonetheless pithily relevant to today. I’ll paraphrase it: “To anger a free speech advocate, lie to him. To anger an intersectionalist ideologue, tell the truth.â€
When free debate is curtailed through hysterical displays of moral exhibitionism in order to prevent any challenge to dogma-driven lies, key pillars of Western civilisation – freedom of speech, due process, the presumption of innocence – are under attack. Perhaps those of us who want to conserve liberty and free speech from further effacement ought to be defending them, with allies, from those who want to tear them all down under the intersectionalist delusion (or “lie†in more prosaic terms) that they constitute an oppressive “patriarchy.â€
Such a great post, I wanted it to appear twice in the thread.
A good defence to the Authoritarian Left is to give not one single solitary damn about their ad hominem character assassinations. I don't give a hoot if some blue haired blob thinks I'm a transracialgenderphobe, or what anyone think I "should" think or say or be allowed to think or say. |
|
Brian R. |
Peter E. responds to Hedda
It’s not immediately obvious to me that Paul Joseph Watson is an “odious little creep” or that Spiked-online is a “ludicrous faux-libertarian website”, largely because I don’t personally know Mr Watson and I have no evidence that Spiked is orchestrating some kind of deviously authoritarian sub-agenda. Perhaps such evidence exists somewhere, but it doesn’t seem to me to be present in any credible way in the public sphere. For all I know, Watson may love David Hare plays or Carol Ann Duffy poems, which would certainly make him an odious little creep in my book. But I don’t know that, so I’ll leave it aside as a consideration. I can only judge him on his public utterances, and I think he’s pretty sound on the issue of free speech, even if he’s prone to the occasional injudicious overstatement. The same applies to Spiked.
I’m not, I hasten to say, claiming that I’m right. But the only way that I know of that I can be corrected if I’m mistaken is through the free exchange of words with other people. People who don’t try to shut down free debate by pre-emptively hissing “sexist!”, “racist!”, “fascist” or accusing their interlocutors of one the new hard-Left thought crimes such as “transphobia.”
When intersectionalists claim that free speech isn’t as important as the right not to be offended, it seems to me that they’re gratuitously confecting a fake right that doesn’t formally exist. As Professor Jordan Peterson put it in his Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman when he made this point: in order to be able to think truthfully, you have to risk offending people. And there’s no one more expert at taking incendiary offence than the postmodern-intersectionalist Left, who are clearly highly adept at orchestrating social media mobs to frighten people away from speaking freely and truthfully, or risk irrecoverable reputational damage if they do.
Whatever we might think of PJW, Spiked or the Murdoch dynasty, this can’t be good. There’s a meme in circulation that was perhaps wrongly attributed to Teddy Roosevelt but is nonetheless pithily relevant to today. I’ll paraphrase it: “To anger a free speech advocate, lie to him. To anger an intersectionalist ideologue, tell the truth.”
When free debate is curtailed through hysterical displays of moral exhibitionism in order to prevent any challenge to dogma-driven lies, key pillars of Western civilisation – freedom of speech, due process, the presumption of innocence – are under attack. Perhaps those of us who want to conserve liberty and free speech from further effacement ought to be defending them, with allies, from those who want to tear them all down under the intersectionalist delusion (or “lie” in more prosaic terms) that they constitute an oppressive “patriarchy.” |
|
hedda |
can't believe I'm reading claptrap about the odious little creep Paul Joseph Watson. 
Next there will be an exercise in praise for the ludicrous faux Libertarian website Spiked & the ridiculous bore Brendan O'Neil, neither of whom have the courage to admit their backers are billionaires Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart both who would remove anyone's "free speech" within a heart beat. |
|
holocaust21 |
I'll reiterate what Randall said and say yes, now I couldn't agree with you more Peter, Bravo 
You captivated what I wanted to say. Free speech can be used to take away free speech, but if you start trying to limit it then that does also lead to tyranny. So the preferable solution is to have absolute free speech but with a culture of debate and disapproval for those who use it to aggressively slander or take away the freedoms of others.
That said, when you are in a society that is falling off the cliff, I sometimes wonder to myself... If someone said to me that he will grant me one wish to have just ONE law enacted then which law would that be? I'd be very tempted to say that law should be the criminalisation of feminist speech. Enacting any other law would soon get revoked by the loony feminazis and we'd be back where we started! That would be the one law that would shut them up, provided it was enforced with the level of zeal that Jim Gamble prosecuted child pornography offences.
Hey, if they're already playing dirty (by criminalising MY speech), then why can't I criminalise THEIR speech? |
|
|
|
|
