Free speech.

[FJRider]

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

Even "Joe Public" have legal avenues to pursue ... if they believe their own rights are/will be infringed. Most are too fucking lazy to take any action themselves ... and rely on elected members of Central/Local Government to take action "In the Public Interest of Law and Order".

Freedom of speech ... does not override every article of law in this (or any/every)country.

[carbonhed]

Friend I was working with today wondered if Bradley and Chelsea Manning were related... sigh.

I've got no time for the treacherous little fucking rodent but he should be allowed to speak. What a dumb bunch of assholes National are being over this.

And when I said treacherous "little" fucking rodent... here he is with some adults...



You'd think a little psychological profiling might just have picked up some of his issues before trusting him with as much as a toilet brush.

[Graystone]

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up isn't free speech.

Group 1 arguing against what Group 2 is saying is.

The difference is subtle - but I increasing don't like this attempt to conflate the 2.

Both are free speech, attempting to base what is free speech or not on your value judgement of their validity is just fucking moronic.

[Graystone]

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.

No, they didn't. The speakers were still free to speak somewhere else. That's what you muppets don't understand, free speech is not about forcing others to listen.

[TheDemonLord]

Both are free speech, attempting to base what is free speech or not on your value judgement of their validity is just fucking moronic.

One is attempting to suppress the other - that's not a value judgement.

[Katman]

That's what you muppets don't understand, free speech is not about forcing others to listen.

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

[Drew]

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Freedom of speach does not grant anyone the right to speak everywhere they want to be heard.

They can speak in any public place, that they are allowed to be in.

[FJRider]

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up isn't free speech.

Group 1 arguing against what Group 2 is saying is.

The difference is subtle - but I increasing don't like this attempt to conflate the 2.

"The Hecklers Veto" is when the authorities (ie: Police) shut down a speaker "In the interest of Public Order" simply because of what the hecklers "Possible" actions might be if the speaker was allowed to be heard. Entirely lawful under the international rules of Freedom of Expression .. Under article 19(3) ICCPR ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/professiona...ages/ccpr.aspx )

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up is free speech. However ... if Group 2 take offense at that, Group 1 can be held accountable in a court of law ... should they choose to take that action/option.

[Woodman]

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

So when you come back with something like 'fuck off shitforbrains" do we then consider your argument and previous and subsequent arguments worthless?

[Katman]

So when you come back with something like 'fuck off shitforbrains" do we then consider your argument and previous and subsequent arguments worthless?

No, it's just my way of showing my level of contempt for you.

[Woodman]

No, it's just my way of showing my level of contempt for you.

Aaaah, I can tell that you like me really. Go on admit it.

[husaberg]

Not that I really care but...

Free speech is exactly that... This (or that) person is free to say what ever the heck they want BUT it is entirely appropriate for an organisation, business or even a country to not allow a particular person to say what they are going to say on their patch. If I lean right and the left want to set up a speaking engagement in my café its my right to say no thanks. It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.
Say what you want but please don't say it here...
I'm actually OK with that. To a point...

Friend I was working with today wondered if Bradley and Chelsea Manning were related... sigh.
I've got no time for the treacherous little fucking rodent but he should be allowed to speak. What a dumb bunch of assholes National are being over this.

And when I said treacherous "little" fucking rodent... here he is with some adults...
You'd think a little psychological profiling might just have picked up some of his issues before trusting him with as much as a toilet brush.

As far as i know No one wants to stop him speaking, just traveling to NZ, its not about him/her persay its the rules we have that apply to everyone.
If he/she wants to speak to people in NZ no one is stopping him, we have telephones Skype and many other ways he could speak to NZ......
The difference is reason he/she is traveling to NZ wanting to speak and profit from their crimes

[Katman]

As far as i know No one wants to stop him speaking, just traveling to NZ, its not about him/her persay its the rules we have that apply to everyone.

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.

[husaberg]

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.

You are pretty ill informed as per usual.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131108269

pplicants for all visas must be of good character, not pose a security risk and not threaten New Zealand’s international reputation.
People with serious character issues can’t be granted any visa or entry permission, except in very special circumstances.
People with other character issues must have the good character requirement waived before they can be granted residence.

Serious character issues
You can't be granted a visa if you:
have ever been convicted of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more
have been convicted in the last 10 years of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or longer
are prohibited from entering New Zealand
have ever been removed, excluded or deported from any country.
You will also not be granted a visa if we have reason to believe you:

are likely to commit an offence in New Zealand that is punishable by imprisonment
are likely to be a risk to security
are likely to be a threat to public order
are likely to be a risk to the public interest.
If you have a serious character issue, you are normally ineligible to be granted a visa unless we grant you a special direction.
.

You apply at least weeks prior to entry which has just occurred.
For an exception to the rules barring their entry to be made, it has to be in the public interest or to cause them hardship.
I cant see it being either. boo hoo....

[pritch]

Most people don't have a very good understanding of free speech, even in America where their constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Internet users seem to think free speech means you can say anything you like. Not so. Laws of libel still apply. So do court orders.

Generally you have a right to speak - within the law. Nobody has to provide a platform. Nobody has to listen.

Some regard Chelsea Manning as a traitor, in similar circumstances I might agree, but not this time. View those murderous doped up arseholes in a helicopter shooting up photographers and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

Another Military leaker, Reality Winner, just received a five year jail sentence for leaking military information. It was her who let the world know about the Russians meddling in the US election. She's in jail but none of the guilty conspirators are. Yet.