Banjo,

I will eventually be excluded from THIS particular forum.
After some time I have become familiar with the mix or blend of commentors and the mind-set of the adjudicators on THIS forum, and I have confirmed much about people and their make-up.
Banjo, I wonder why it is that you as a commentor, have any sway over another commentor on here, but that is just another of the myriad of questions I have about this forum.
Whilst I am waiting to be excluded from this forum, I am preparing a much more appropriate and effective medium by establishing my own pod-cast, so I can truly be free from narrow minded and oppressive mind-sets.
What you perceive as offensive and "ad hominem remarks", millions of people would be incensed and attack you for not seeing it as free speech.
As for Foxy and Alan, I cannot think of anything I have said about David, he's ok as far as I am concerned, so again you must have created a problem in your mind, where there is none.
Back to Foxy and Alan, now I have dealt with them and their own particular anti-social attitudes and ideologies.
You may disagree with me, that is your prerogative.
Now as for you and your "holier than thou" attitude, you have demonstrated that you are as flawed as the rest of us.
You don't get to predicate and dictate, unless you are an adjudicator, and if so you still must be above or beyond reproach yourself, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
As for you or anyone, getting their knickers in a knot over what you call antisemitism, I and millions of others call it plain and simple commenting.
Why is it that the Jews and the blacks it seems, believe themselves to be superior and above the rest of humanity.
has it not occurred to you that your attitude is akin to bigotry and marginalising.
You come on here full of yourself, threatening me with your platitudes and version of events, foolishly believing that your version of events is the true and righteous one

Dear Foxy & Banjo,

I deeply appreciate you & your efforts. However, I think you are wrong. Free speech is dangerous. Demagogues, bigots and ratbags of all sorts can express their noxious opinions and even find followers. However, I believe that the lack of free speech is even more dangerous.

It is comforting to silence the ratbags so the 'good' people are safe. However, I think silencing the ratbag is a danger in itself. Justice Murphy of the US Supreme Court described limits to speech.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1348/francis-murphy

Murphy described limits to freedom of speech

“Despite his generally broad protection for First Amendment freedoms, Murphy was the author of the Court’s opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), in which he wrote a passage that courts frequently cite when they stress that the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Murphy’s fighting-words exception establishes the categorical exclusion model of First Amendment jurisprudence — that one way to distinguish protected from unprotected expression is to determine whether speech falls into certain categories, such as fighting words, obscenity, or child pornography.”

Note that in the above Murphy would allow restriction of speech where it would “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This is roughly equivalent to causing ‘a clear and present danger’.

I don’t think ALTRAV presents a clear and present danger even though he apparently is a prejudiced individual who subscribes to shonky conspiracy theories. Shut him up, and you create a martyr. Ignore him or challenge him with reason and laughter. Above all, remember he is a fellow human being.

Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 19 July 2020 11:29:38 PM

Most delusions are hopefully not harmful, but some can invoke a strong reaction. I have such a reaction (not very strong - mostly head-shaking) regarding the case of 'Malka Leifer' and those who fight so strenuously against her extradition to face criminal charges in Aus.

Answer- I was concerned by this case. This seems to be a case where a minority group uses their minority status and other stati as a shield.
Interesting that they should use a "woman" principle to hide a child exploitation racket. Leftist tactics in this domain are also interesting. Though Jewish people do still mostly vote left.

Irony-

Surely a woman didn't do this- a white man must have told her to do it.

Also the Tibetan Dalai Lama must be a racist and stoned to death because he rejects legitimate Chinese immigration

David, I feel I should thank you for what I'd like to believe is a vote "for freedom of speech".
You are correct in surmising that my speech is not about inciting violence, but in fact the opposite.
I grinned at your joke, and ask; in your opinion, am I, all good or all bad?
I must clarify something.
Is someone now not allowed to hate, dislike, get angry, retaliate, be jealous, sarcastic, and well basically be human?
I do not subscribe to this saintly world that Foxy attempts to promote, because it is not the real world and mostly because what she is promoting is a lie, a falsehood, to which I cannot abide, and as much as she seeks the moral high ground on the subject, it is I who will not let it get through to the keeper, and call it out whenever the situation calls for it.
Since being on forums, of which I am on more than one, I have come to confirm some things and learn some things about people.
That we are ALL different!
We don't always ALL agree!
Opinions are pointless!
Most people are too set in their ways and ideologies, and are mostly wrong to do so.
I abhor the principal that I (or anyone for that matter) cannot speak my mind if the situation requires or even demands it.
I say again, I care not about someones sensitivities if I feel something should be said.
Too many (what I see as gutless people) hide behind stopping freedom of speech to save them being told the truth as in doing so will upset them.
David that is a flaw in their character for being weak, not mine for being honest and forthright.
So the question is do we say only what makes others feel good, but makes us feel bad?
Who has more worth the speaker or the one being spoken to?
Like PC, by shutting down freedom of speech, it will shut down the truth.
I hope this clarifies and helps towards a better understanding of free speech.

Good Morning David,

Firstly, Thank You Banjo, Saltpetre, Joe, for your comments.
They are appreciated.

David, we have rules that bind all people living in a
community/society. Laws that protect our general safety and
ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other
people, by organizations, and by the government.

Discussion forums also have rules that participants are
expected to adhere to if they want to continue to post.
People who want to flaunt those rules - can always go
elsewhere. Some blame the rules on political correctness.
That is a furphy. What some call PC - most call - common
sense and good manners - that in a civilized society we're
all expected to adhere to.

We teach our children how to behave properly. We even toilet
train our pets (bit of humour here). So it is natural to
expect a fully functional adult to know how to behave in
mixed company and what is or is not appropriate behaviour.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are certain limits.
Also freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say
anything you like and not face any consequences in your life.

For example, If I am rude and foul-mouthed to my friends or
colleagues - they may choose not to spend time with me. If
I am rude to my employer or speak badly about the organization
for which I work - I may lose my job. If a Chief-of-Staff
for a political leader says crazy things which affect the
leader's image - that Chief of Staff wouldn't have that job
for very long. And the list goes on.

Therefore to simply call out a person postings on a discussion
forum for their consistent use of foul, repulsive,
inappropriate language and their irrational, inflexible, attacks
on entire categories of people - with no evidence - is not
an infringement of their freedom of speech - but a misuse of
the right of freedom of speech. And it needs to be called
out - clearly and loudly.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote, “Therefore to simply call out a person postings on a discussion forum for their consistent use of foul, repulsive,
inappropriate language and their irrational, inflexible, attacks
on entire categories of people - with no evidence - is not
an infringement of their freedom of speech - but a misuse of
the right of freedom of speech. And it needs to be called
out - clearly and loudly.”

I have no objective to your calling out. However, I have not heard “foul, repulsive, inappropriate language.”

I have heard “irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.”

However I believe it is an infringement of freedom of speech to ban someone for “irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.”.

I don’t like to hear irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.

However, freedom of speech means exactly that. It is allowing someone to say things you find loathsome, obnoxious, wrong, incorrect and otherwise unacceptable to you.

One can call saying things that you find loathsome, obnoxious, wrong, incorrect and otherwise unacceptable to you a misuse of freedom of speech. It may even be a misuse of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech includes its misuse