tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post122342661700059196..comments2024-03-28T17:09:23.172+00:00Comments on The Thoughts of Chairman Bill: Tolerance & StatuesChairman Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02104786653126767184noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-30385087290837613012017-09-08T18:41:51.589+01:002017-09-08T18:41:51.589+01:00But saying your children will burn in hell is not ...But saying your children will burn in hell is not something that's a) going to happen in the here and now, and b) is not likely to happen at all. It's not inciting anyone, except, perhaps, God, who you may or may not believe in. Chairman Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02104786653126767184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-30887695139684720852017-09-08T18:39:24.986+01:002017-09-08T18:39:24.986+01:00I would question why is this example is more serio...I would question why is this example is more serious than a bunch of Millwall fans threatening (in song) to kill the opposing fans? For me the key is credibility and statements of opinion or emotion (albeit imbecilic) like this aren't credible and shouldn't be treated as incitement.<br /><br />Also, and crucially, there are plenty of people (millions in fact) to whom religious scripture is exactly that, i.e. incitement to action, is religious hate speech somehow different from all other kinds?Steve Borthwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361597018502017407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-11021234069805585072017-09-08T13:39:36.047+01:002017-09-08T13:39:36.047+01:00I can see a difference - one is incitement, the ot...I can see a difference - one is incitement, the other is not. Chairman Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02104786653126767184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-45990272237198182472017-09-08T13:23:37.635+01:002017-09-08T13:23:37.635+01:00It's all about what constitutes "danger&q...It's all about what constitutes "danger" and to whom (who decides?) For example do you agree that some bloke from North Wales got 12 months in jail this week for tweeting that "all Muslims should be murdered" following the Manchester bombing. Whereas a Christian preacher shouting in the street that our children are going to burn in hell for eternity for reading Harry Potter, is just being religious? I can't see the difference.Steve Borthwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361597018502017407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-74092926150943718092017-09-08T12:11:26.789+01:002017-09-08T12:11:26.789+01:00That's where the public security codicil comes...That's where the public security codicil comes in. If your free speech is likely to cause a danger to public security, then it should be curtailed. I see that as tantamount to hate speech.Chairman Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02104786653126767184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-56086202999058655442017-09-08T10:46:50.674+01:002017-09-08T10:46:50.674+01:00I think we would agree on this; I'm not saying...I think we would agree on this; I'm not saying you shouldn't have a problem with a weird idea (i.e. challenge it!), but that we shouldn't be able to legislate against ideas you find "rude", i.e. prohibit them as the quote suggests.Steve Borthwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361597018502017407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-25999923047955728442017-09-08T10:24:50.296+01:002017-09-08T10:24:50.296+01:00I agree with you on the first issue, but not neces...I agree with you on the first issue, but not necessarily on the 2nd. If someone has a weird opinion (and I'm the arbiter of that) and keeps it to themselves, then no problem. When they post it on FaceBook and have issues with me arguing against it, then I have a problem with their opinion and have every right to attack it - they're inviting a discussion.Chairman Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02104786653126767184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2809146912677894496.post-22003688956499306992017-09-08T09:39:44.986+01:002017-09-08T09:39:44.986+01:00- Just because something happened in the past, doe...- Just because something happened in the past, doesn't make it "right". But, modern peoples shouldn't be held responsible for the immoral acts of their ancestors; merely not tolerated to deny or normalise them without challenge.<br /><br />- Who gets to decide which are the "scatterbrains" and which are the moral reformers? Free-speech has to be "free", i.e. the set of speech that is "free" includes the set that is "rude".Steve Borthwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361597018502017407noreply@blogger.com