[serious] Unpopular free speech

[Heraclitus]

[DaShi]

Sloww forum!

[Dinner]

I'd bang the news woman on the left.

BTW the government hasn't banned this speech and instead individual hotels canceled for business reasons because customers threatened to boycott if they didn't. Clearly individual consumers do have a right to threaten to boycott a business if they don't like their practices.

[Ecofarm]

I'm not watching the video, but (on subject) I think it is best to keep the cockroaches in the light.

[Heraclitus]

BTW the government hasn't banned this speech and instead individual hotels canceled for business reasons because customers threatened to boycott if they didn't. Clearly individual consumers do have a right to threaten to boycott a business if they don't like their practices.

This is true.

Do they have the right to death threats thou?


And how would death threats against Black and Hispanic groups of similar profile be handled not just by the media (which are under no obligation to be fair or "objective" or even truthfull) but by the authorities (who do have an obligation to ensure the same law applies to all)?

[Ecofarm]

"the same law aplies to all"

?

Mostly, I can think of exceptions to that.

1. Repeat offenders.
2. Offenses against minorities.
3. Offenses by minors.
4. Varying sentence guidlines.
5. Judge instructions to jury.
6. Jury recommendations to court.


It seems a million things vary how a law will apply to a given individual(s) in a specific context. It seems irrational to approach an issue from a "the same law applies [the same] to all" fallacy.



What are you trying to prove? That laws apply differently given context? Ok, we're busted.

[HalfLotus]

Russia Today

[Heraclitus]

"the same law aplies to all"

?

Mostly, I can think of exceptions to that.

1. Repeat offenders.
2. Offenses against minorities.
3. Offenses by minors.
4. Varying sentence guidlines.
5. Judge instructions to jury.
6. Jury recommendations to court.


It seems a million things vary how a law will apply to a given individual(s) in a specific context. It seems irrational to approach an issue from a "the same law applies [the same] to all" fallacy.



What are you trying to prove? That laws apply differently given context? Ok, we're busted.

I'm saying people like Jared Taylor receive very little protection from the police while while people who hold orthodox enjoy these privileges.


What happened to the marketplace of ideas? The only way we can find the best ideas is if we let them compete with each other freely.
Aren't authorities mandated to help preserve or establish it?



PS After reading some more about the incident apparently some of the thugs calling didn't just settle for threatining the hotel managers but also resorted to threatening one managers children.

[giblets]

Do they have the right to deat threats thou?

IMO murder should be illegal. (murder is illegal by definition HAR HAR HAR)

[Heraclitus]

Do we even have any moderators left here? I put the [serious] tag here for a reason. Can we stick to the topic?

[Ecofarm]

I, for one, could have lived without the ape pee pic.

[giblets]

Do we even have any moderators left here? I put the [serious] tag here for a reason. Can we stick to the topic?

Stop trying to suppress free speech.

[Heraclitus]

I, for one, could have lived without the ape pee video clip.

Ftfy

That was precisley what I was refering to.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's kind of presumptuous to attempt to dictate how people respond in a thread. You might as well have put in [hubris] as well.

[Heraclitus]

This is besides the point. I have followed the rules layed down by the admins.


I desired a thread that would remain on topic, and so I posted with the [serious] tag. If you dislike the practice start a thread criticizing it.


(The irony of course is that If you start such a thread without the [serius] tag I should be abloe to derail it with Monkey urin or some other such nonsense with impunity)