Has this turned into a DIY forum?

[bogeyman]

Is Cyber banned permanently, or just on the naughty step for 2 weeks or so ?

If he isn't coming back, would the admins reveal if he was a sock puppet ?

Why? Are you missing him?

I'm not.

[Board Game Geek]

Bogey posted : Why? Are you missing him?

I'm not.

Well, at least he stimulated discussion, regardless of whether his views were right or not (and that's debatable anyway).

Yes, the Scot's thing was very naughty and provocative, and he did deserve a public slapping, but in the long run, once his lesson is learned, and he apologises, (and only IF he apologises), then why should the door not be open for those who recant ?

[DiscoStu]

Well, at least he stimulated discussion, regardless of whether his views were right or not (and that's debatable anyway).

Yes, the Scot's thing was very naughty and provocative, and he did deserve a public slapping, but in the long run, once his lesson is learned, and he apologises, (and only IF he apologises), then why should the door not be open for those who recant ?

Cos he's a bigoted, racist twunt.

[Board Game Geek]

DiscoStu : Cos he's a bigoted, racist twunt.

Ah yes, silly me.

I forgot that because someone's views are deemed as x,y, and z, we should silence their freedom of expression.

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" ?

Or is that now an arbitary and selective statement ?

For shame...

[d000hg]

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" ?

CUK is not a public place. It's a private website owned by someone, and they can reserve the right (in my eyes) to decide who they want to let in without it being a matter of freedom of speech.


But regardless of that, you'd defend my right to say anything I might choose about black people? It would be ok in your eyes for me to stand on my box in Hyde Park and talk about how Hitler had the right idea about the Jews?

[RichardCranium]

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" ?

This did: please-make-cybermans-ban-only-temporary

It would be ok in your eyes for me to stand on my box in Hyde Park and talk about how Hitler had the right idea about the Jews?

It would be OK by me. Three reasons:
a) Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park has special rules
but besides that
b) that is a location where you would be forced to face the public and accept heckling. If you are willing to do that, then that's your lookout and you should be allowed to say it.
c) censorship ultimately only serves the evil.

[d000hg]

Hyde Park was just an example, maybe a bad one. If we can really say whatever we want then you also think radical Muslims inciting violence is ok, the BNP should be allowed to shout abuse at coloured people, etc, etc?

Question: does the UK have free speech by law? Anyone know?

[Zippy]

Hyde Park was just an example, maybe a bad one. If we can really say whatever we want then you also think radical Muslims inciting violence is ok, the BNP should be allowed to shout abuse at coloured people, etc, etc?

Question: does the UK have free speech by law? Anyone know?

By law, no.

[RichardCranium]

If we can really say whatever we want then you also think radical Muslims inciting violence is ok, the BNP should be allowed to shout abuse at coloured people, etc, etc?

I believe censorship is a bad thing.

I believe someone inciting another to commit a crime is a bad thing. But that is not someone expressing a view in a reasoned debate.

I believe shouting abuse at people is a bad thing. But that is not someone expressing a view in a reasoned debate.

I cannot see why Moslems should not be allowed to say why they they are hard done to.

I cannot see why BNP cannot say why they think whatever it is they think.

But in the context of a reasoned debate: there must be the ability to give the other side(s) of the argument.

Go and look at the web sites of Holocaust denialists and you'll see they are barking mad.

Go and look at the web sites that say NASA never went to the moon. You will find yourself checking their suspect claims and easily find the far more convincing counter sites.

Go and read up on eugenics and then think about what Hitler said about the Jews and see the context in which he was twisting some data to serve political means.

But by suppressing those web sites (and books and video lectures and so on) you cannot pull their arguments apart. Instead you get young people wondering why information is being kept from them and becoming radicalised.

More communication, more listening, more talking, more querying - these things make for understanding and consideration and forgiveness.

Censorship makes for paranoia, fear and violence.


Banning the BNP from speaking gives support to the BNP.

Banning Moslems from following their views because there is no discussion on Sharia law (do you know the difference between mainstream Islamic belief and Sharia law?) helps radicalise young Moslems.


Promoting violence is bad. Abusing others is bad. Censorship is bad.

[d000hg]

Great argument. The point is you still have to draw a line between freedom to express yourself, and stopping people's expression affecting the lives of those around them. You talk about reasoned debates... but that's imposing rules for freedom.
And by your own logic, was Cyberman ever guilty of "expressing a view in a reasoned debate" when he said Indians are dirty, Scots are stupid, etc?