When did Free Speech disappear?

Shaka_Zulu

pepper77 wrote: »

!!!!!! is a gender neutral toilet?

One where everyone pees on the seats not just the blokes, really quite simple!

societys_child

Originally Posted by seven-day-weekend
...... or the sidelining of Christianity whilst Islam is lauded and paraded......

grahawk wrote: »

. . . sounds a bit weird. Clearly judging by your thankers it's a right wing perception.

You're clearly in denial, and what on earth is right wing about it :huh:

[Deleted User]

pepper77 wrote: »

!!!!!! is a gender neutral toilet?

I would imagine that gender neutral toilets are remarkably common, it's just that they are not usually referred to in that way.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, every house or flat I have ever owned or visited had gender neutral toilets, and nobody else in the properties batted an eyelid.

I think I saw a video clip (Bill Maher?) where he ridiculed politicians who opposed their introduction yet presumably used them every day in their own homes.

WR

Topcat123

fairy_lights wrote: »

But I never said I was in favour of Censorship? No one on this thread has.

but you made no sense how can you confuse free speech with being a bigot?

Explain

evenasus

fairy_lights wrote: »

Free speech hasn't disappeared, some people just confuse it with being a bigot.

Topcat123 wrote: »

Which make you a bigot if I understand you correctly!!

bigot
ˈbɪɡət/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

Person A agrees/is in favour of same sex marriage
Person B disagrees/is not in favour of same sex marriage.

If both were intolerant of each others views, it would make them both bigots?

BarryBlue

It is a complete fallacy that there is 'free speech' in this country, and I'm sure there never has been for various reasons. It does always seem to be the claim of DM-reading sorts that they want to be able to spout whatever bile they like!

We do not have the freedom to go round saying things that are a breach of public order or discrimination legislation, for instance. This has been the case over many years, although obviously the laws do get adapted to reflect modern attitudes. For instance, it is illegal to abuse someone on the basis of sexuality, yet less than 50 years ago it was commonplace and almost expected in some quarters.

I find it laughable that it is being suggested that there should be some sort of protection from criticism for religions. The church has been responsible for restricting free speech throughout history, through such things as blasphemy laws which are obviously victimless. It's a bit rich that they are happy to revile non-believers, yet get upset when their belief is laughed at. In some religions the intolerance still extends to killing people who don't 'believe'. I just think the world would be a much better place without it.

It is fair enough not insulting individual people because of what belief they happen to subscribe to, but the beliefs themselves are certainly open to criticism, and that is an important distinction. I happen to think that virgin birth, resurrection and lots of their other claims are just daft, so why should I not be able to say so. The same applies whichever religion is concerned.

onlyroz

evenasus wrote: »

Person A agrees/is in favour of same sex marriage
Person B disagrees/is not in favour of same sex marriage.

If both were intolerant of each others views, it would make them both bigots?

Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is a bit like disagreeing with women having the vote. It’s legal. Get over it.

happyandcontented

I sat through a presentation yesterday aimed at students.

The gist of it was that even if you are speaking privately to a friend and they are not offended by a comment made in jest or banter, if someone else overhears and complains that they were offended you will be disciplined. The RL example given related to sexuality, and a suspension was the outcome.

£$&*"($£&(

societys_child wrote: »

and what on earth is right wing about it :huh:

It's a right wing perception that you can't talk about all the stuff mentioned in the OP. I'm not sure about the last one which remains a bit weird.

Marisco

grahawk wrote: »

I agree with a previous point that this is largely if not entirely nonsense. You can talk about all this stuff. The last one sounds a bit weird. Clearly judging by your thankers it's a right wing perception. Perhaps it how you talk about this things.

You can yes, but if you deviate away from the flavour of the month current fashionable thinking, you are almost treated like a pariah, ridiculed as being "old fashioned" and worse. That is the problem. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and person A's is no more or less valid than person B's, no matter what Twitter, FB and th media says.