Kicking Off in Paris Again

[EternalOptimist]

[Lola C]

I believe they are arguing that it is both a violation of personal freedoms and, in addition to that, ineffective. You can disagree with the people making these arguments but they're not "stupid".

Since you brought him up, I would have thought that Snowden knows a great deal more about how intelligence gathering and use works than most people.

And you think that because of... ? Never considered the possibility that he maybe says what he is told to say by the ones who pay him?

[BolshieBastard]

Freedom to discriminate, by anyone, against anyone, for any reason, is essential to achieving a civilised society. And it's essential to maintain one.

We're ****ed.

In your hysteria maybe thats how you see it but actuallly no, its not. Its not freedom to discriminate against anyone. Its curtailing the ability of terrorist groups and sympathysers (sp?) to bring their filth into other countries. Its stopping them the 'freedom' to spout hate, to radicalise some impressionable and not so impressionable people. Its the ability to kick them out of the country without having to go through endless hoops while they continue to spill their bile.

The due process of the law shouldnt be endless appeals on new grounds everytime by ambulance chasers looking to make a fast buck and a name for themselves.

****ed? Yeah we will be if we carry on as we are.



Freedom of speech carries weighty responsibility. Although oft trumpeted by the liberal heart, there's no such thing as unfettered freedom of speech.

[Lola C]

I'm sure they'd say that more people should take notice of people like him.

Western governments spend a fortune systematically destabilising middle eastern & north african countries, removing their institutions & empowering those that would see those institutions razed. And then you suppose these domestic issues are all because we don't keep enough secrets.

Anyone who thinks their government gives a single tulip about their safety is idiotic beyond belief. Empiricism demonstrates the exact opposite every single day.

Not buying the "western governments" argument. The involvement of some of the colonial Empires like the UK and France into the the third world countries business was much higher before the decolonization. These countries were in fact ruled by the UK and France! However, there were no terrorism on the same level as now.

[SpontaneousOrder]

In your hysteria maybe thats how you see it but actuallly no, its not. Its not freedom to discriminate against anyone. Its curtailing the ability of terrorist groups and sympathysers (sp?) to bring their filth into other countries. Its stopping them the 'freedom' to spout hate, to radicalise some impressionable and not so impressionable people. Its the ability to kick them out of the country without having to go through endless hoops while they continue to spill their bile.

The due process of the law shouldnt be endless appeals on new grounds everytime by ambulance chasers looking to make a fast buck and a name for themselves.

you are endorsing discrimination right there.

Freedom of speech carries weighty responsibility. Although oft trumpeted by the liberal heart, there's no such thing as unfettered freedom of speech.

Like there' no such thing as delicious spaghetti? or joyful walking?

Freedom of speech is a concept, so unless there's a logical contradiction in there somewhere then i don't think it means aything to say that there "is no such thing as freedom of speech". So I don't understand what your point is.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Not buying the "western governments" argument. The involvement of some of the colonial Empires like the UK and France into the the third world countries business was much higher before the decolonization. These countries were in fact ruled by the UK and France! However, there were no terrorism on the same level as now.

Read what I wrote again, then what you wrote. Your own argument goes a long way to validate my own.

[MicrosoftBob]

Stating the obvious but this needs repeating

[BolshieBastard]

you are endorsing discrimination right there.

You really are foolish \ a bleeding heart liberal, arent you? No, Im not and for the reasons I posted. There is no unfettered freedom of speech and especially so to the very people who want to destroy it.

No doubt you'll try and put the same spin you have on my previous points but that's up to you. You'll let any destroy the very freedom you seem to want to protect.

Like there' no such thing as delicious spaghetti? or joyful walking?

A ludicrous statement but Im not surprised.

Freedom of speech is a concept, so unless there's a logical contradiction in there somewhere then i don't think it means aything to say that there "is no such thing as freedom of speech". So I don't understand what your point is.

My point is, freedom of speech is not unfettered. It (freedom of speech) carries some responsibility such as not abusing it. Points I clearly made in my post so have absolutely no idea why you dont understand my point.

You arent Jeremy Corbyn are you?

[Zero Liability]

And you think that because of... ? Never considered the possibility that he maybe says what he is told to say by the ones who pay him?

Because he has actually worked in an intelligence agency. Who do you think might be paying him, and to what end, and what evidence do you have for it?

[Lola C]

Read what I wrote again, then what you wrote. Your own argument goes a long way to validate my own.

Sorry, I guess you have been quoting their argumentation but without quotation marks, which made me confused as to whose arguments they were, yours or Snowden-apologists.