30,000 Britons Demand Trump

[Helloplite]

LurkerJ said:

Helloplite said:

I am not saying that hate speech should or should not be banned. Hate speech is banned, and it is not something subjective. It is clearly defined in the British legal system, which is the legal system applied to in this case. Capiche? 

Got it.

Now, in regards to Islamic teachings themselves: I actually find Islam, alongside all monotheistic Abrahamic religions, to be very simplistic and constructed around patterns of us-versus-them, which permeate the vast majority of religions practiced worldwide. Any religion that distinguishes between infidels and non-infidels is a religion constructed around the practice of segregation and assimilation.

No disagreement there.

Now, here's where things get interesting: Free speech and freedom of belief or religion mean that anyone is allowed to believe anything they want. Religions are very controversial constructs that can often be used for hateful reasons and that much is clear to me from the get-go. However, so long as an individual does not enforce or practice their belief in a way that does harm to another, I am actually fine with it. I am fine with Satanism, just the same as I am fine with Islam. The moment a Muslim actually decides to take up arms, and go on a Jihad based on their interpretation of Quran (whatever that is, I actually really don't care), that's the moment when police ought to come and throw them in jail to rot. I may believe that children are unholy products of Satan. As long as I don't go around killing children and enacting my belief against the laws of the state or country I live in, I am actually fine. If I went around calling all children of Jews satanic, I would be committing a hate crime and that would be well beyond my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of belief or religion. I would, at that point, by actuating my beliefs into hateful practice, which is where justice and law would rightfully step in.

I am not even a liberal, yet what I said is precisely the context upon which ALL so-called 'western democracies' are built upon: individual liberty as the principle around which social justice is constructed.

And I am trying to say is that you can't possibly have freedom of belief and enforce hate speech laws simultaneously. On to your next post because we don't seem to disagree here. 

But yes you can! Think that Pakistanis are centipedes in disguise? Fine! Just don't print pamphlets that say that and throw them outside the entrance of the home of a Pakistani family.

Now, I am not saying that this is not a complex task of interpretation. Or that judges always get it right. However, if you find a Muslim outside your house throwing pamphlets that say "all infidels must be killed!" then I assure you that you can call the police and they will arrest that individual inciting hatred. The same law works the same way in all instances. Which is why I took offense to how it was originally presented, that you can somehow be imprisoned for saying that Allah is gay, but it is somehow fine to say that Jesus is gay. You are concentrating on the wrong thing. She is free to believe any crap she wants. It became hate speech when she started throwing ****ing pamphlets around a Muslim neighborhood. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Freedom of speech is not freedom of conscience. In western liberal states freedom of speech comes with certain restrictions which is where the concept of hate speech comes in. It's the same thing as when we speak of 'freedom', which still does not mean you can go and freely kill another person. Freedom comes with inherent limitations.

Last edited by Helloplite - on 10 April 2018