So why did someone expressing their freedom of speech become unpopular?

[bjj hero]

I was all for Nick on question time. It showed him up as the bigot and political light weight he is. He could not answer a single question adequately, the best he could muster was "I never said that", even though he's on youtube saying it.

I thought it was funny when he said he'd changed his mind on the holocaust but couldn't say why because of anti-racism laws. The justice secretary, Jack Straw, on the panel guarenteed Nick he would not be prosecuted and he still didn't say anything.

Thats the thing with free speech, he got to say his bit, the audience could ask him uncomfortable questions he wouldn't answer and the BNP were shown up as the racially motivated frauds that they are.

I don't understand the people on here who can't see that the BNP are racist. Im tired of hearing "they are just defending their cultural heritage". They aim to return Briton to how it was around WWII. Thats not preserving white, christian, culture. It's removing everyone elses culture. It says everything when it needed legal challenge before they agreed to let in non-white Britons as members. Skin colour and/or race is the only factor considered.

Heres hoping free speech gets Nick onto Newsnight where Jeremy Paxman will rip him a new one and send him home crying.

 

[Crimson Cade]

I know very few people who don't hate SOMEONE. Especially when surrounded by like-minded who accept your hate as something to be commended as a sign of adherence and devotion to a cause, whether it be hatred for immigrants, or the BNP.

Yeah, hatred of the BNP isn't commended as a 'sign' of the same things as hatred of immigrants is. That's like saying people who want to put kidnappers in jail are just kidnappers themselves.

This is the kind of 1984 double-talk that other posters have been talking about, where we start comparing 'hatred' of the members of racist political party to 'hatred' of all foreigners for wanting to immigrate as if the two kinds of judgment were the same thing.

I just say that it is popular to hate the BNP. Which is a pointless waste of calories in my opinion. It is a fad, the current focus for the extreme right-wing bashing of the month, a fashionable label to wear so all your like-minded friends can think you are cool.

Saying that they WOULD do this and that horrible act should they be elected is just as stupid as them going on about that if extreme Muslims came into power in Britain and alcohol would be outlawed, their daughters would be covered up and their grandchildren would have their genitalia mutilated. Neither is gonna happen in a relatively stable modern western society.

Yeah, sure it is offensive and noisy, and such parties do drive people who is already disposed to being a bigot psycho over the brink and bring them out in the open to parade their fucked up opinions. But once you put the first "IF-" after "Everyone should be free to speak their mind", you open up for some pretty dangerous possibilities for manipulation for the REAL potentially dangerous minds down the road. And, if we silenced the obnoxious bigots of the extreme right, what would the self-righteous whining extreme left-wing do to pass their time? Should we silence them too, so the rest of us can focus on REAL political debate?

 

[Crimson Cade]

Freedom of speech is not carte blanche. It is not freedom to talk shit.

Yes it is. It really fucking is. It is freedom to talk shit. But it is not freedom from paying the social and political consequences of talking that shit. The freedom to say horrible things is properly tempered not by government policing but by consideration and argument.

Thats an admireable viewpoint but relies heavily on people not being halfwits & assholes. Since we are discussing this on the internet which is the epitome of halfwits & assholes a simple google search will demonstrate why there should be limits on freedom of speech. About 10 seconds on 4chan will have the same results.

Where would the fun be in that?

To quote Dennis Miller: "Don't we LOOK for things to bother us? I don't care what they say about baseball, THIS is the #1 national past-time."

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5dD0DjW0I

Few things more fun than taking the piss out of said halfwits and assholes

 

[cuddly_tomato]

People tend to pull the freedom of speech card when it suits them. You'll never hear someone complain about having to listen to someone preach their religion and then espouse the virtues of free speech :S

You obviously haven't looked at this site very much. This exact thing happens here all the time.

First off: Comparing the success of the Nazi party to the level of danger the BNP represents is downright ignorant. The BNP is more or less a country-club for angry white-trash who confuse racial purity with "patriotism", who equate the problem of the world to "There are too many fokkin' pakis and darkies!"

The problem with this is the fact there are tabloid newspapers actually making all kinds of shit up about immigrants to stir up hatred. There have actually been riots and chaos due to this crap in recent years, and it is starting to enter mainstream politics. My personal worry is the more extreme conservatives (like Cameron) might think "ohh yeah, well the BNP is doing better by saying we should rag on immigrants all the time, so we should do that to grab more votes", and let extremism into mainstream politics.

Actually no. My post demonstrated clearly that you are not fully entitled to say whatever you like.

But not that you shouldn't be entitled to say whatever you like.

Damn right you shouldn't. Making shit up about other people in an attempt to stir up hatred and violence is not acceptable to anyone with a brain and a modicum of morality.

People often should have rights to do socially unacceptable things.

When you say "socially unacceptable" are you talking about picking out belly button fluff? Picking ones nose? Eating with your mouth open? Or are you talking about stirring up racial hatred and encouraging "direct action" against these horrible dark people?

There is something really sweetly innocent about the argument that the BNP should be allowed to talk on the BBC as this will "expose their ignorant ideas". History teaches us otherwise. I don't suppose that, in 1941, many people thought: "You see, this is all working to plan. Now he's invaded Russia everyone will see just what an idiot this Hitler really is." Newsflash folks: Griffin wasn't talking to us. He was talking to the demographic out there who already espouse racist ideas but need to be made aware of the BNP and feel like they have a politician on this side in this... Griffin character.

Even a cursory glance at the history of Weimar Germany ought to give the lie to such a fatuous comparison.

After a BNP member was elected in 1993 Griffin said: "The electors of Millwall did not back a post-modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites', with well directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/beliefs.stm

Pretty similar ideology of the young Hitler as far as I am concerned. Same methods and goals.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Rings of free action suck man!

I want to be able to haste myself

And you are so wrong. So terribley wrong I shaln't even go into explaining why. How about just telling him you disagree? He poses no threat what-so-ever to you. He will NEVER get any form of power.

When have you EVER known people like the BNP (and their fans) to stop when they're told to shut their holes? You've obviously never actually had to deal with a person that has a fanatic belief in something, and the urge to try and convert everyone with a heartbeat to their cause, but I have. I've got relatives that are both members of religious sects, as well as a couple that are Western Canadian separtists, and the town I live in had recurring problem with Neo-Nazi skinheads while I was a teenager. None of those groups will shut up unless threatened with physical retaliation.

NO AMOUNT OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT OR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR IDIOCY WORKS. And if you think arguing with a neo-nazi skin, one-on-one, in an alley works, then I hope YOU don't like your teeth, because they didn't want to talk to begin with.

So maybe being willing to ignore this sort of human trash works in a perfect world, but in the real world, it's necessary to be able to shut these mental midgets up with a single pop in the teeth. Pain is the ONLY teacher they understand, and if you can't bring yourself to deliver it physically, then you'd better be prepared to do it financially or socially. Those are the ONLY things that shuts them up for any period of time.

Have fun in your ivory tower, but don't cry when the flames reach you.

 

[Littaly]

Cheeze and Superbeast

If I ever start a band, I'm going to name it that.

On topic: I don't think people are out to limit the freedom of speech, it's just that they are expressing their strong disagreement with other people's opinion, as so many others are.

 

[Grand_Pamplemousse]

Rings of free action suck man!

I want to be able to haste myself

And you are so wrong. So terribley wrong I shaln't even go into explaining why. How about just telling him you disagree? He poses no threat what-so-ever to you. He will NEVER get any form of power.

When have you EVER known people like the BNP (and their fans) to stop when they're told to shut their holes? You've obviously never actually had to deal with a person that has a fanatic belief in something, and the urge to try and convert everyone with a heartbeat to their cause, but I have. I've got relatives that are both members of religious sects, as well as a couple that are Western Canadian separtists, and the town I live in had recurring problem with Neo-Nazi skinheads while I was a teenager. None of those groups will shut up unless threatened with physical retaliation.

NO AMOUNT OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT OR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR IDIOCY WORKS. And if you think arguing with a neo-nazi skin, one-on-one, in an alley works, then I hope YOU don't like your teeth, because they didn't want to talk to begin with.

So maybe being willing to ignore this sort of human trash works in a perfect world, but in the real world, it's necessary to be able to shut these mental midgets up with a single pop in the teeth. Pain is the ONLY teacher they understand, and if you can't bring yourself to deliver it physically, then you'd better be prepared to do it financially or socially. Those are the ONLY things that shuts them up for any period of time.

Have fun in your ivory tower, but don't cry when the flames reach you.

HEY LADS, GO GET THE BASEBALL BATS... IT'S VOTING DAY!

And yes I have dealt with fanatism. I go on the bloody internet for frigs sake. Most of my family are devout roman catholics.

Punching someone doesn't make them stop believing in something. Infact all you'll have done is make them more motivated to do something.

However, upon taking a gander at the English set of human rights I have discovered something. We are not given freedom of expression. We have limited freedom of expression. This has made me very sad.

I am disapointed that I live in a so called democratic society that doesn't even allow us to express our opinions (if they may 'offend' somebody).

 

[cuddly_tomato]

However, upon taking a gander at the English set of human rights I have discovered something. We are not given freedom of expression. We have limited freedom of expression. This has made me very sad.

I am disapointed that I live in a so called democratic society that doesn't even allow us to express our opinions (if they may 'offend' somebody).

I think you are confusing freedom of expression with attempts to create rifts in otherwise peacable communities, incite those communites to commit violence, then present oneself as the antidote to that violence.

Griffin isn't merely dishonest. He is a dangerous and deluded fraud, who is trying his best to hurt people.

 

[mrx19869]

Coming from the view of an American,

This is all people just expressing there freedom of speech

 

[Seanchaidh]

There is something really sweetly innocent about the argument that the BNP should be allowed to talk on the BBC as this will "expose their ignorant ideas". History teaches us otherwise. I don't suppose that, in 1941, many people thought: "You see, this is all working to plan. Now he's invaded Russia everyone will see just what an idiot this Hitler really is." Newsflash folks: Griffin wasn't talking to us. He was talking to the demographic out there who already espouse racist ideas but need to be made aware of the BNP and feel like they have a politician on this side in this... Griffin character.

Even a cursory glance at the history of Weimar Germany ought to give the lie to such a fatuous comparison.

After a BNP member was elected in 1993 Griffin said: "The electors of Millwall did not back a post-modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites', with well directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/beliefs.stm

Pretty similar ideology of the young Hitler as far as I am concerned. Same methods and goals.

Different country, history, and opportunities. Hitler didn't achieve power by being questioned on national television, he achieved it by developing a paramilitary organization of disaffected youth and World War veterans. If you want to fight the BNP, don't look at Question Time, look at what they're doing in your poor white communities like Castle Vale. The answer isn't to shut them out of the debate, it's to undercut their efforts at swaying your poor whites. Helping people out and then asking for their vote isn't done on national television, it's done locally. What you certainly do not want to do is ignore the rhetoric; that just makes people exposed to it that much less likely to know why it's wrong. Banning speech is a very unwise thing to do; that action itself legitimizes what you're trying to ban by letting people conclude that the speech is so threatening because it must be quite persuasive. That gives the targeted audience persecution complexes and a feeling of the importance of rebellion and the illegitimacy of their government: if the government refuses to even let citizens hear the view then it certainly isn't representing the citizens who would vote that way. That's a dangerously hypocritical provocation in a supposed liberal democracy and not smart at all. Liberalism loses when it borrows the tactics of authoritarianism in power, especially when it does so to suppress authoritarians. Fascists were invariably anti-democratic or anti-parliamentary. If you shut people out of the debate, those people and those they represent then have legitimate and rational reasons for being anti-democratic. You have to humor them and you cannot show cowardice by refusing to face them on fair terms. Otherwise you run the danger of losing.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Rings of free action suck man!

I want to be able to haste myself

And you are so wrong. So terribley wrong I shaln't even go into explaining why. How about just telling him you disagree? He poses no threat what-so-ever to you. He will NEVER get any form of power.

When have you EVER known people like the BNP (and their fans) to stop when they're told to shut their holes? You've obviously never actually had to deal with a person that has a fanatic belief in something, and the urge to try and convert everyone with a heartbeat to their cause, but I have. I've got relatives that are both members of religious sects, as well as a couple that are Western Canadian separtists, and the town I live in had recurring problem with Neo-Nazi skinheads while I was a teenager. None of those groups will shut up unless threatened with physical retaliation.

NO AMOUNT OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT OR REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR IDIOCY WORKS. And if you think arguing with a neo-nazi skin, one-on-one, in an alley works, then I hope YOU don't like your teeth, because they didn't want to talk to begin with.

So maybe being willing to ignore this sort of human trash works in a perfect world, but in the real world, it's necessary to be able to shut these mental midgets up with a single pop in the teeth. Pain is the ONLY teacher they understand, and if you can't bring yourself to deliver it physically, then you'd better be prepared to do it financially or socially. Those are the ONLY things that shuts them up for any period of time.

Have fun in your ivory tower, but don't cry when the flames reach you.

HEY LADS, GO GET THE BASEBALL BATS... IT'S VOTING DAY!

And yes I have dealt with fanatism. I go on the bloody internet for frigs sake. Most of my family are devout roman catholics.

Punching someone doesn't make them stop believing in something. Infact all you'll have done is make them more motivated to do something.

However, upon taking a gander at the English set of human rights I have discovered something. We are not given freedom of expression. We have limited freedom of expression. This has made me very sad.

I am disapointed that I live in a so called democratic society that doesn't even allow us to express our opinions (if they may 'offend' somebody).

While giving an arse a solid thump in the gob may not make THEM stop believing in whatever brand of lunacy they preach, it does have the gratifying effect of getting them to shut the hell up. It'll also remind them that preaching to you is only going to give them black eyes and a headache, and that generally cuts down on the number of times they'll try to preach to you. Now, if every time an arse like the BNP leader spoke up, everyone present shouted him down, or threw wiffle balls at him, he'd finally get embarrassed enough to shut up and stay home, wouldn't he?

Pain and humiliation will eventually cause the strongest men to crumble, and I doubt some twit that's crying the way this one does has enough self-esteem to take much embarrassment.

And yes, it's unfortunately that politically correct and euphemistic language is forced upon us, but unless you refuse to use it, it'll keep creeping back. Watch a few George Carlin skits about euphemisms and P.C language. It'll help you relate to my point of view a little better, even if we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the Forces that Be put so much emphasis on politically correct language and euphemism

 

[Grand_Pamplemousse]

SNIP

SNIP

HEY LADS, GO GET THE BASEBALL BATS... IT'S VOTING DAY!

And yes I have dealt with fanatism. I go on the bloody internet for frigs sake. Most of my family are devout roman catholics.

Punching someone doesn't make them stop believing in something. Infact all you'll have done is make them more motivated to do something.

However, upon taking a gander at the English set of human rights I have discovered something. We are not given freedom of expression. We have limited freedom of expression. This has made me very sad.

I am disapointed that I live in a so called democratic society that doesn't even allow us to express our opinions (if they may 'offend' somebody).

While giving an arse a solid thump in the gob may not make THEM stop believing in whatever brand of lunacy they preach, it does have the gratifying effect of getting them to shut the hell up. It'll also remind them that preaching to you is only going to give them black eyes and a headache, and that generally cuts down on the number of times they'll try to preach to you. Now, if every time an arse like the BNP leader spoke up, everyone present shouted him down, or threw wiffle balls at him, he'd finally get embarrassed enough to shut up and stay home, wouldn't he?

Pain and humiliation will eventually cause the strongest men to crumble, and I doubt some twit that's crying the way this one does has enough self-esteem to take much embarrassment.

And yes, it's unfortunately that politically correct and euphemistic language is forced upon us, but unless you refuse to use it, it'll keep creeping back. Watch a few George Carlin skits about euphemisms and P.C language. It'll help you relate to my point of view a little better, even if we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the Forces that Be put so much emphasis on politically correct language and euphemism

To be honest you seem like a really violent prick.

The only form of LEGAL protest you should/can show? Is not putting a little x by his name on voting day.

He must have some sort of policy that people are interested in. His votes have risen since last voting day, so whatever people are interested in mainstream political parties should try to offer as maybe they could win a few votes. You at least take these people's opinions into consideration when they make up a reasonably large number of people (for a non-mainstream party at least).

Are you seriously saying people with different opinions (okay, weird and unpopular ones) should be attacked? Go live in some police state, I think their policies on speech would be to your liking.

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

the problem is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world (really you wouldnt believe how many) and they say ignorant and stupid things out of fear, jealousy or a plain lack of understanding of the subject they're talking about. now when stupid people start saying stupid things eventually other stupid people will start to think.... hey that guys on to something! and then come the stupid actions.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

To be honest you seem like a really violent prick.

Someone who ostensibly supports the BNP leader and National Front former member is calling someone a violent prick?

Ohhh the ironing.

The only form of LEGAL protest you should/can show? Is not putting a little x by his name on voting day.

He must have some sort of policy that people are interested in. His votes have risen since last voting day, so whatever people are interested in mainstream political parties should try to offer as maybe they could win a few votes. You at least take these people's opinions into consideration when they make up a reasonably large number of people (for a non-mainstream party at least).

Are you seriously saying people with different opinions (okay, weird and unpopular ones) should be attacked? Go live in some police state, I think their policies on speech would be to your liking.

Nope. No politician should be able to stand on a racist agenda. That is the antithesis of a democracy. Among other things, there is no issue to answer. "Darkies" coming too our country is not a problem. There is no danger of the "Islamification" of Britain. And these claims about the white person being oppressed are nothing more than pure rhinocerous shit.

Nobody should be allowed to start trouble between ethnic groups, then present himself as the solution to that trouble. The man is pure evil.

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

nothing unifies people better than a common enemy and there is no worse enemies than those wacky nazis!