Britain ending free speech

[Undertoad]

I haven't put much time in on it, and can't definitively say which side I'd wind up on. I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.

~

This is not an open forum. It's moderated. Sex trafficking is strictly forbidden. Rule number one: "Do not try to break the law using the Cellar". It's rule number one for reasons!

~

There is some confusion over what is meant by freedom of speech. Having certain rights doesn't allow us to violate other people's rights. The example always given is, you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater.

Because the limit on freedom of speech is whether it affects other rights, the fact that you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater is not a dilution of freedom of speech. It's a protect of all our rights.

UNLESS we invent new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

[Griff]

I was pretty susceptible to libertarian slippery slopism. I see the world differently now, more of an ongoing negotiation. If we screw up, we can change course.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is using Fascist approaches to fight Fascism. How far will it go?
...
... full implications ... most alarming ... I expect to hear a lot more of it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.

[Undertoad]

...I anticipated that objection, which is why I specified what nasty is: inventing new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

It's not a slippery slope, it's a problem right now: people are being prosecuted right now for saying things.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...I anticipated that objection, ... such as the right not to be offended.

Actual problem is rarely discussed. Why is Trump so popular? Because he is routinely offensive. Most adults respect a bully; not the honest and informed. Throughout history, that is how ignorant bullies - who are destructive to their supporters - are so popular and gain so much support and power.

It goes right back to a fundamental problem. Many adults are still children. They make conclusions from their emotions - fail to use a pre-frontal cortex.

An adult acting like an adult will first collect facts and then make a logical conclusion. Supporters of bullies make an immediate conclusion from their emotions. Automatically believe a first thing told. And then are so emotional as to deny any realities and facts that expose the lie.

We all saw this with Saddam's WMDs. Facts clearly stated WMDs did not exist. But fears, lies, and other emotional hype even claimed Saddam was a threat to the US mainland.

Obviously that was impossible. Even countries adjacent to Iraq said he was not a threat. But emotions were embedded in so many who made decisions based only in their fears and other emotions.

That explains why offensive speech is so dangerous. Even successfully used by Hitler to define Jews as evil. It was so easily used by Hitler to justify racism - a superior blue eyed, blond haired superior German race. Those lies were believed because so many adults thought emotionally like children.

Obviously those claims were bogus to adults who were thinking like adults. It also explains the entrenched and obviously ignorant support for The Donald.

It is not just Trump who plays this emotion card. Bernie Sanders was doing same. Yes, his objectives were admirable. But his solutions had no basis in reality. Even his supporters, when challenged to explain their support, would recite myths. A classic one was the Federal Reserve is a private corporation harmful to the economy.

Tea Party was created on another lie - that TARP was evil to enrich the elitists (ie Rockefellers). Basic economics were irrelevant to their emotions. Many adults think like children - making offensive speech so dangerous.

So we address offensive speech rather then the reason why offensive speech creates so much evil. Unfortunately, it is not possible to require adults to think like adults - even if they use emotions to create a crime - like the launch of the Challenger. It usually takes something like murder (ie drag racing on public streets) to address this problem.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... inventing new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.
...

How about the right not to be offended by consenting adults who are sharing/communicating explicit material via the internet which does not objectify much less "traffic" anyone, and specifically only involves (in ANY way) the willing, consenting, adult participants?

[tw]

Offensive speech even in tonight's news. Rather than do research for a Veterans Administration secretary, the Donald did (last month) what the emotional do. He promoted his White House doctor.

Turns out this doctor (Jackson) was demeaning, offensive, an over aggressive pill pusher, and may have come to work drunk. Rather than admit he did not do what an adult does (do the research), the Donald instead attacked to so many who came forward with facts. It took about a month for reality to get to the Donald.

How many citizens so hate America as to believe the Donald's offensive accusations rather than learn facts? Too many.

I don’t want to put a man through a process like this. The fact is, I wouldn’t do it. What does he need it for? To be abused by a number of politicians?

What would an adult do? Learn how this president makes decisions only based upon his first emotions. He promoted someone he knows (but not very well) and without doing any homework. He could not bother to find a person who is best and qualified for the job.

Ironically, he fired the previous (and well respected) administrator via a Tweet. This president does not have the balls to fire anyone personally - and with facts that justify that decision.

How do bullies obtain support and power? How does he justify his ignorance? He offensively attacks others. That makes hiim popular among adults who are still children.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Flint

How about the right not to be offended by consenting adults who are sharing/communicating explicit material via the internet which does not objectify much less "traffic" anyone, and specifically only involves (in ANY way) the willing, consenting, adult participants?

That represents about 30% of Internet traffic, as of a few years ago. The Internet is For Porn.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That represents about 30% of Internet traffic, as of a few years ago. The Internet is For Porn.

What is the line between "porn" and consensual sex work, such as "cam girls" --are the operators of those websites "trafficking" the participants, or are they consenting adults?

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is no line.