Tuesday, 23 August 2011

Free speech (terms and conditions apply)

Busy tonight, so not drinking. I have some soft drink called Boddington's to keep me going. I think I might also get some of this to drink while smoking in public. Might as well keep the loonys' illusions going, eh?

Tonight I refer you to Longrider's description of those who defend free speech by denying it to those they disagree with. No, not the UAF this time, although this lot are shaping up along the same lines. Also to the one who is really confused about all this, and whose question I have no answer to.

Perhaps it's one for Bella Gerens' progressive dictionary - Free Speech is when you say what the appropriate pressure group agrees with, hate speech is when you say what they don't agree with.

The doublethink involved in praising Twitter use in Libya while demanding it be shut down in the UK is amazing, and you just know the drones will see no problem with supporting both positions. "Ah, but it's different" they will say. No. It isn't. What the Coagulation want is the power to shut down networking media when something happens that they don't want to happen. They say 'when trouble happens' but look at the official response to the riots. What did officialdom do? Not a great deal.

So it's not trouble for us they are worried about. it's trouble for them.

Perhaps a few of these posters scattered around will start a few dormant minds thinking.

Ah well. Back to work, trying to think up more bizarre stories than I read in the Daily Mail. It's not easy.


banned said...

Did anyone suggest closing down British Telecom during the riots of the 1970's because revolting students might telephone each other and was the Royal Mail suspended during the 19thC Gordon Riots in London?

I do agree with both you and Longrider that this foolish woman has the right to spout whatever nonsense she chooses, indeed, the more the merrier.

JuliaM said...

"Tonight I refer you to Longrider's description of those who defend free speech by denying it to those they disagree with."

I've my doubts about Mensch's tale, frankly. Something doesn't ring true there.

john miller said...

Funny thing about banning Twitter.

It didn't cause as much outrage as it should because about 59 million people in the UK don't use it.

Had the Government issued an order to censor the mail or television there would have been a bit more of an outcry.

john miller said...


Read the previous comments before posting!

Michael Fowke said...

I'm not saying the Libyan rebels are a bad lot, but how would Cameron feel if a foreign state supported the English rioters and looters, and called for regime change?

James Higham said...

Yep, anything not approved and currently fashionable is hatespeech, everything else is enlightened and sensible.

opinions powered by SendLove.to