Forum menu
Two wrongs dont make a right
Three lefts do, though.
I hate to do it but, to quote Piers Morgan imagine choosing Katie Hopkins as your freedom of speech/both sides hill to die on
**** her, I hope she ends up destitute and gets a council house between families of failed asylum seekers
*edit* Though she'd probably sell it as a redemption story
Thing is, “freedom of speech” does not equate to “you can say what you like.” We have laws against various forms of hate speech.
Yup, like 'democracy' 'freedom of speech' has been perverted to mean 'I can say what I like and you have to allow it' when in fact it is only a protection against persecution for your political views. Likewise democracy is not having a say and getting your way on everything you care to take issue with, it's a term relating to the equal holding of collective power either through direct or elected representation.
With power comes responsibility and failure to exercise that power responsibly comes with its own consequences. Sadly there are too many people in this world who don't understand this and either believe they have the right to say whatever they like or protect those who do. Condemning hate speech, deplatforming or whatever other action you choose to take does not make you a hypocrite nor does it make you a fascist. It is only the degree of proscription that distinguishes the libertarian from the totalitarian.
Three lefts do, though.
lol
and well put squirrelking
That speech... Just wow...
Part of me wonders whether in her tiny, unfeeling, racist mind she thinks she's Frankie Boyle and its all just poo and giggles?
My only regret about the footage of her spearheaded is the heavy editing. I’d rather it had been the full speech so there was not way an accusation of misinterpretation could be made.
Thing is, “freedom of speech” does not equate to “you can say what you like.” We have laws against various forms of hate speech.
Respectfully I disagree.
We have various wishy-washy, contradictory acts intended to place controls on that basic "freedom of expression" from the Human rights act, all intended to do slightly different things; some to prevent incitement of violence or terrorism, others are essentially a half arsed attempt at ratifying the old 'hurt feelings form' to satisfy "hand wringers"... The truth is the human rights act trumps most of them.
The trouble is these instruments are seldom actually invoked to shut down objectionable bigots, and to do so you need to define a speakers intent as well as how it causes "harassment" or "distress" for a given target... Plus of course if they were used to shut such 'hate speakers' down with, say the amended public order act, it would essentially be handing Katie and Co an easy 'win' for their claims of being silenced by "PC, lefty, elites" it's a case I bet she'd gladly lose to make a bigger point...
To paraphrase a bit, I cannot stand the woman or her views, but if I believe in a truly free, liberal, open society I have to defend her right to expression. That doesn't preclude her being challenged vigorously, or made to look an utter plumb...
Agreed Cookeaa. The only thing that I think makes it harder to accept Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones etc is they appear to do it to make a very good living.
Headbangers like the Westboro baptists, that mad guy with the sandwich board, your average Islamist hate preacher often sacrifice a lot to exercise their free speech. I.e. they are free to say those things but suffer for it. I kind of admire their total commitment to their brand of stupid. It doesn't appear to be cynical in the same way that Hopkins is.
**** her, I hope she ends up destitute and gets a council house between families of failed asylum seekers
You see council houses and asylum seekers as some sort of purgatory?
You see council houses and asylum seekers as some sort of purgatory?
It would be for her, which is clearly what was meant by that post.
(Stop trying to find things to complain about)
Is it just me or is Hatey Plopkins a ringer for the mummified corpse of Michael Winner?
To paraphrase a bit, I cannot stand the woman or her views, but if I believe in a truly free, liberal, open society I have to defend her right to expression.
No. Disagree entirely, you are defending the indefensible. By defending her speech you are effectively endorsing it. The "truly free, liberal, open society" you speak of is a myth. You cannot have freedom without rules, paradoxically, because those rules underpin the freedoms of everyone else. If you remove those rules you impinge upon the freedoms of others.
By allowing these people to have a platform you are enabling them. Who the **** would even have heard of the vile cow if she hadn't been fetishised by the media? Nobody. Tommy Robinson? Nobody. But because as long as it sells who cares who you use as clickbait or where it ends? Nah, don't think so. If the media can't be trusted to regulate itself then someone should do it for them.
you are defending the indefensible. By defending her speech you are effectively endorsing it.
But I'm not defending the content of her speech, I'm defending her right to free speech. That is a fundamental right that we all have, and is a cornerstone of a "free" society, what people choose to do with it cannot really be controlled. But take away people's right to believe and voice opinions without fear of reprisal by the authorities, and you're on your way to creating a totalitarian state.
Those who provide her with a platform have their own moral conscience (and probably shareholders) to answer to.
The things Katie Hopkins says are self evidently wrong, we're all in agreement there. Aside from her bigoted views the biggest lie she spouts is that she is "oppressed" for voicing her opinions, when, as you point out, she has been financially rewarded and given access to bigger platforms by the commercial media all because she courts contraversy and that sell advertising. But she lacks credibility precisely because of that fundamental dichotomy in her world view. The worst thing you could ever do is "prove her right" by gagging her.
Her time in the public eye is almost done, the fickle nature "celebrity" means that her brand of unpleasantness has now been done and viewers/readers are no longer interested the bookings and columns are drying up... A gay, Irish poet/playwright had the measure of people like Katie-poos long before she was even born:
"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
No doubt she'd miss the point and denigrate him too, but that insight into the mind of those who crave notoriety cuts to the very core of her weak fragile ego...
Stop trying to find things to complain about
Are you Laurence Fox?
Was interesting to read online earlier her long history of epilepsy. Makes her speech all the more weird. I wonder if she has some temporal lobe damage impacting on her judgement/ability to temper views?
Just saw this, utterly brilliant and then if there was any doubt as to appropriateness of the set-up she gave that toxic speech.
I am lost for words.