The Chronicles of Narcissist

[Ovinomancer]

I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK. Then again, I don't have a problem with Trump saying that he says. Free speech means very little if it only applies to speech I agree with.

My issue is with the people listening to him and agreeing. That's an embarrassment to the nation.

I'm not an old, card-carrying East Cost liberal, but I still agree with you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.

Exactly. Even in the USA, no right- even that of free speech- is absolute. They all have limitations.

Hate speech, incitement to cause a breach of the peace, libel, and several other forms of speech can land you in jail or cost you tons in civil penalties. In some cases, how free you are to speak depends on who you or where you are, or when you are speaking.

And here's the thing: "free speech" does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

To put it in the context of the UK's prospective ban on Trump: they are not contemplating banning him for what he might say, they are considering banning him because what he already has.

 

[Kramodlog]

Trump supporters aren't uniformed, they are misinformed and thus behave differently. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...o-be-misinformed-not-uninformed/?ex_cid=538fb

 

[delericho]

I dunno, does talking about killing someone count as a a discussion of murder? I didn't think what I said was overly contentious, but apparently it is?

I don't think it's hugely contentious, but the sub-thread about the UK maybe having a problem with freedom of speech (which, it's true, was started by Maxperson, but which was continued by you) jumped the gun a little - since we're still only at the "talking about a ban" stage, it's too soon to declare that we have a problem.

 

[delericho]

I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK.

I agree. I'm generally of the position that I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it. And also the position that the correct response to someone saying something stupid is mockery, not censorship.

 

[Ryujin]

Any nation has an absolute right to ban entry from a non citizen, for any reason or none at all. If a person gives ample reason for such a denial by, say, engaging in what that country considers to be hate speech, it's hardly a surprise that they might FORMALLY address the concept of denying entry to that person. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who was involved in well publicized burning of the Quran, was barred from entering Canada. Roosh V, a self proclaimed "pick up artist" who had planned to hold 'classes' in Canada and has made statements like 'rape shouldn't be illegal on private property' was barred entry.

But, as I also said, you can be barred entry for no reason at all. A foreign national has no explicit nor implied right to enter another sovereign nation. Trump could be denied entry to the UK because border services agents are afraid of his hair.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

There is no chance whatsoever of the UK government deciding to ban him. They'll discuss it, because the sheer number of signatures on that petition pretty much requires that they do so, and then they'll decide not to take any action.

Because, quite simply, the UK cannot have a ban in place that prevents a visit from the head of state of our most powerful ally. Which means that if we did ban DT and he did become President, our government would then enjoy the high-profile humiliation of rescinding that high-profile ban.

So as long as there remains any chance of DT becoming Pres, he's not getting banned.

Though it will be fun seeing which of our politicians says the stupidest thing in the debate.

Are they planning on permanently banning him? I thought it was just to prevent his January 18 visit. He wouldn't be the President by then, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think it's hugely contentious, but the sub-thread about the UK maybe having a problem with freedom of speech (which, it's true, was started by Maxperson, but which was continued by you) jumped the gun a little - since we're still only at the "talking about a ban" stage, it's too soon to declare that we have a problem.

I think considering censoring someone clearly touches on free speech. And, since it's an issue that needs to be resolves (whether or not to censor Trump), and that's what problem means, then it's pretty clearly a free speech problem. That was the entire intent and extent of my post. And yet I've spent, what, three more posts in clarifying that I wasn't telling anyone they couldn't or shouldn't talk about it (which does have some amusingly ironic undertones in and of itself).

How many times do I have to clearly state that my post wasn't intended to restrict or constrain discussion in any way, but to merely counter the statement that consideration of censoring isn't a free speech problem (it clearly is, after all, it's talking about whether or not censoring is a good thing in context)?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Any nation has an absolute right to ban entry from a non citizen, for any reason or none at all. If a person gives ample reason for such a denial by, say, engaging in what that country considers to be hate speech, it's hardly a surprise that they might FORMALLY address the concept of denying entry to that person. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who was involved in well publicized burning of the Quran, was barred from entering Canada. Roosh V, a self proclaimed "pick up artist" who had planned to hold 'classes' in Canada and has made statements like 'rape shouldn't be illegal on private property' was barred entry.

But, as I also said, you can be barred entry for no reason at all. A foreign national has no explicit nor implied right to enter another sovereign nation. Trump could be denied entry to the UK because border services agents are afraid of his hair.

Yup.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think considering censoring someone clearly touches on free speech.

He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK. He is potentially being punished for saying those words.

Those are not the same thing. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.