The Law Freedom of Speech

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
5,328
5,627
AFL Club
Sydney
They're right wingers. Southern promotes the white replacement theory that motivated Tarrant. Molyneux promotes biological racism.

Why haven't they been banned?
Their politics dont concern me.. i dont agree with them but thats no reason to ban them.

Specifically what hate speech did those people say that they should be banned?
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
38,270
33,657
AFL Club
GWS
Their politics dont concern me.. i dont agree with them but thats no reason to ban them.

Specifically what hate speech did those people say that they should be banned?
You've missed the point.

Posters have claimed youtube is biased against conservative SJWs. I've pointed out that if that were the case, these accounts would be banned also.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
38,270
33,657
AFL Club
GWS
You ask these questions as if they are necessary for you. Not until absolute censorship will you be satisfied that your desired regime of censorship is sufficient.
Isn't censorship required to condemn something as censorship?

We keep hearing about censorship from these accounts with millions of subscribers. It's branding. Like the tape over the mouth cover shot.
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
38,270
33,657
AFL Club
GWS
And just on this, it seems the bannings are more reflective of more confrontational personalities. The Neil Erkisons and Alex Jones' will get their shit banned because they target individuals.

Stefan Molyneux peddles biological racial hierarchies, but presents it in a calm, conversational manner, so he's fine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
8,242
4,800
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Oh dear, what people are forgetting is that speech can't actually be suppressed. Consequence can be applied to any speech or words or whatever you wanna call it.

The real issue is what is valid for consequence? Well again that's going to vary from one to the next isn't it? Regardless what anyone says or does someone somewhere is going to take offence - I've stated this many times and it cannot be disputed.

The blunt reality is we can't just censor everyone because someone somewhere doesn't like it.That is the epitome of impractical - it would literally mean taking away communication altogether if we're going to protect "everyone"

How people don't get that (including some posters on here) is the very reason it is in fact impossible to protect everyone from "speech". FMD we're literally debating on whether or not free speech should be allowed. It's f***** words ffs, how about the world stop being so immature and precious?

I'm sure someone somewhere is offended by this post, if so grow up you precious snowflake ffs.
 

Top Bottom