FOS discussion

gashonthenail

You will own nothing and you will be happy...
Did someone stop morrissey from speaking? Must have missed that period.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speaking what you want to speak. Freedom of speech means speaking what you want to speak without fear of being burned at the stake, literally or metaphorically.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speaking what you want to speak. Freedom of speech means speaking what you want to speak without fear of being burned at the stake, literally or metaphorically.
Nope. Freedom of speech means you can speak what you want without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you, because having a different opinion is also freedom of speech. Morrissey lives as the most of us on here in the western world where this isn't a real problem at all. Chill out.
 
Nope. Freedom of speech means you can speak what you want without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you, because having a different opinion is also freedom of speech. Morrissey lives as the most of us on here in the western world where this isn't a real problem at all. Chill out.
Yep. This isn't a real problem at all.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speaking what you want to speak. Freedom of speech means speaking what you want to speak without fear of being burned at the stake, literally or metaphorically.
I thought freedom of speech also meant people could speak up against someone’s views? When did morrissey get burned at the stake in any way?

The freedom to speak goes both ways. Speak but don’t expect people to be silent in response.
 
Yep. This isn't a real problem at all.
Not sure how that is relevant to Morrissey? He probably sides on the side of the trans minority to be honest though.

Many countries have laws to protect against hate and discrimination in regards to sexual orientation and transgender including the UK.

This relates to:

"Any incident/criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender".

The said article though doesn’t give the whole truth. It is an inaccurate article from an outspoken feminist medium who have consistently spoken against transgender rights. You will note that the article says “facing prison time”. But in reality it isn’t the case. It is also not the Uk and Morrissey’s statement was directly referring to the Uk.

Don’t let reality and keeping to the point cloud your freedom to speak though. Speak away even if it is ……
 
Nope. Freedom of speech means you can speak what you want without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you, because having a different opinion is also freedom of speech. Morrissey lives as the most of us on here in the western world where this isn't a real problem at all. Chill out.
Hate to be that guy but nobody has complete freedom to speak what they want without being prosecuted for it, if that speech amounts to perjury, fraud, breaking confidentiality laws, commissioning a crime, espionage etc. Surely freedom of speech is more of an idea that we have viewpoint diversity in society where everyone can express ideas and also choose to listen to (or choose not to listen to) different ideas?
 
Hate to be that guy but nobody has complete freedom to speak what they want without being prosecuted for it, if that speech amounts to perjury, fraud, breaking confidentiality laws, commissioning a crime, espionage etc. Surely freedom of speech is more of an idea that we have viewpoint diversity in society where everyone can express ideas and also choose to listen to (or choose not to listen to) different ideas?
And also being able to express views contrary to those expressed by someone
 
Not sure how that is relevant to Morrissey? He probably sides on the side of the trans minority to be honest though.

Many countries have laws to protect against hate and discrimination in regards to sexual orientation and transgender including the UK.

This relates to:

"Any incident/criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender".

The said article though doesn’t give the whole truth. It is an inaccurate article from an outspoken feminist medium who have consistently spoken against transgender rights. You will note that the article says “facing prison time”. But in reality it isn’t the case. It is also not the Uk and Morrissey’s statement was directly referring to the Uk.

Don’t let reality and keeping to the point cloud your freedom to speak though. Speak away even if it is ……

The problem there being "perceived by the victim". Doesn't mean any actual crime has occurred.
 
Hate to be that guy but nobody has complete freedom to speak what they want without being prosecuted for it, if that speech amounts to perjury, fraud, breaking confidentiality laws, commissioning a crime, espionage etc. Surely freedom of speech is more of an idea that we have viewpoint diversity in society where everyone can express ideas and also choose to listen to (or choose not to listen to) different ideas?
Why do you hate to be that guy? I was referring to the general argument that freedom of speech in general is in danger because you can't say what you want anymore without the risk of "being burned at the stake", which is clearly the sentiment of such statement. Of course there are some reasonable legal boundaries to that but that's a totally different conversation, which would go on endlessly. But it's tiring anyway and that always gets nowhere, so let's agree to disagree on the state of freedom of speech:highfive:
 
Last edited:
The problem there being "perceived by the victim". Doesn't mean any actual crime has occurred.
And nothing in the article says any crime has been committed either. It’s just the usual feminist positioning on that particular topic. It’s not really relevant to the morrissey statement at all.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean speaking what you want to speak. Freedom of speech means speaking what you want to speak without fear of being burned at the stake, literally or metaphorically.
Yeah. Cancel culture proponents will go "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and then proceed to do everything in their power so those "consequences" are the end of your career and your reputation. They're trying to do away with free speech in practice, circumventing the law. Trying to shut up debate through fear. A tactic similar to terrorism, actually.
 
Yeah. Cancel culture proponents will go "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and then proceed to do everything in their power so those "consequences" are the end of your career and your reputation. They're trying to do away with free speech in practice, circumventing the law. Trying to shut up debate through fear. A tactic similar to terrorism, actually.
Odd way of looking at it. Can you explain what the consequences were for Morrissey and with “everything in their power” who is they?

I just saw statements being made by Morrissey on his own web site and in a recorded interview and then people choosing to not be fans anymore.

Interested to know what all these consequences were in your view and who they with the power were unless you refer to the rather bonkers 4 men of the apocalypse again?
 
Yeah. Cancel culture proponents will go "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and then proceed to do everything in their power so those "consequences" are the end of your career and your reputation. They're trying to do away with free speech in practice, circumventing the law. Trying to shut up debate through fear. A tactic similar to terrorism, actually.
There are so many points in this post that are borderline paranoid. Terrorism? The only person who was doing any damage to his own career was morrissey through his own posts and that god awful recorded interview. Remember the horrendous pedophile statements of his? Pretty sure those alone would have turned large numbers of fans away. This idea that there were people in power planning consequences to end his career is just paranoid narcissistic nonsense.
 
Why do you hate to be that guy? I was referring to the general argument that freedom of speech in general is in danger because you can't say what you want anymore without the risk of "being burned at the stake", which is clearly the sentiment of such statement. Of course there are some reasonable legal boundaries to that but that's a totally different conversation, which would go on endlessly. But it's tiring anyway and that always gets nowhere, so let's agree to disagree on the state of freedom of speech:highfive:
Burned at the stake was a metaphor. I think it's a good metaphor for what happened to Morrissey over the past decade.
The idea that the only retaliation restricting freedom of speech is legal prosecution is absurd. There are many forms of retaliation. Peter Tatchell has never been prosecuted. He has been beaten up on several occasions though, and almost killed. The brave protesters in Iran of late are heroic beyond words. I think prosecution is the least of their worries.
As well as retaliation being violence and death, retaliation can also be social, financial, and loss of career. And who knows - maybe even loss of an album?
PayPal have even restricted access to accounts for some people accused of 'hate speech', i.e. people who think you can't change sex. The move of many Western countries towards digital currencies is absolutely chilling. We know where that is heading. I think we would all agree that these social and financial forms of retaliation may be less serious than violence and death, but they can still have significant implications on the individual at the receiving end. The list of people in the enlightened West who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods for their views is extensive. And the ultimate irony? In the UK 'hate speech' has its origin in the Public Order Act passed by the Thatcher government to restrict protest during the Miners' Strike, with the introduction of 'words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress'. The f***ing irony. And yet 'hate speech' is beloved by the left.
 
Burned at the stake was a metaphor. I think it's a good metaphor for what happened to Morrissey over the past decade.
The idea that the only retaliation restricting freedom of speech is legal prosecution is absurd. There are many forms of retaliation. Peter Tatchell has never been prosecuted. He has been beaten up on several occasions though, and almost killed. The brave protesters in Iran of late are heroic beyond words. I think prosecution is the least of their worries.
As well as retaliation being violence and death, retaliation can also be social, financial, and loss of career. And who knows - maybe even loss of an album?
PayPal have even restricted access to accounts for some people accused of 'hate speech', i.e. people who think you can't change sex. The move of many Western countries towards digital currencies is absolutely chilling. We know where that is heading. I think we would all agree that these social and financial forms of retaliation may be less serious than violence and death, but they can still have significant implications on the individual at the receiving end. The list of people in the enlightened West who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods for their views is extensive. And the ultimate irony? In the UK 'hate speech' has its origin in the Public Order Act passed by the Thatcher government to restrict protest during the Miners' Strike, with the introduction of 'words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress'. The f***ing irony. And yet 'hate speech' is beloved by the left.
So how does any of the above relate to Morrissey over the past decade?

Is it not purely that people made their own personal decisions to stop being fans because they didn’t like what he was saying?

Isn’t that their freedom to do so or do you suggest people should be forced to continue to spend their money on an artist they don’t like any more?

I am not aware of a single feminist in the uk who has been silenced from saying they don’t think a man can change their gender. I’m not aware of any arrests relating to that either. Would you like to give evidence of that?
 
Burned at the stake was a metaphor. I think it's a good metaphor for what happened to Morrissey over the past decade.
The idea that the only retaliation restricting freedom of speech is legal prosecution is absurd. There are many forms of retaliation. Peter Tatchell has never been prosecuted. He has been beaten up on several occasions though, and almost killed. The brave protesters in Iran of late are heroic beyond words. I think prosecution is the least of their worries.
As well as retaliation being violence and death, retaliation can also be social, financial, and loss of career. And who knows - maybe even loss of an album?
PayPal have even restricted access to accounts for some people accused of 'hate speech', i.e. people who think you can't change sex. The move of many Western countries towards digital currencies is absolutely chilling. We know where that is heading. I think we would all agree that these social and financial forms of retaliation may be less serious than violence and death, but they can still have significant implications on the individual at the receiving end. The list of people in the enlightened West who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods for their views is extensive. And the ultimate irony? In the UK 'hate speech' has its origin in the Public Order Act passed by the Thatcher government to restrict protest during the Miners' Strike, with the introduction of 'words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress'. The f***ing irony. And yet 'hate speech' is beloved by the left.
One of the most outspoken feminists who has consistently spoken out against transgender is JK Rowling.

Pretty sure she hasn’t been silenced or arrested and is currently enjoying around $100 million a year in royalties from the released Hogwarts Legacy.

It seems you would like to portray all this silencing opinion but in reality it just doesn’t add up. Like you staying that there are huge lists of people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods from speaking out. Such a generic unquantified statement is just meaningless unless you are able to justify such a statement with facts and actual stats but I suspect you can’t.
 
One of the most outspoken feminists who has consistently spoken out against transgender is JK Rowling.

Pretty sure she hasn’t been silenced or arrested and is currently enjoying around $100 million a year in royalties from the released Hogwarts Legacy.

It seems you would like to portray all this silencing opinion but in reality it just doesn’t add up. Like you staying that there are huge lists of people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods from speaking out. Such a generic unquantified statement is just meaningless unless you are able to justify such a statement with facts and actual stats but I suspect you can’t.
Many feminists have had their meetings 'cancelled' by Eventbrite.
And have you never heard of Kathryn Stott? Or Maya Forstater? Or Rosie Kay? Google them.

 
Many feminists have had their meetings 'cancelled' by Eventbrite.
And have you never heard of Kathryn Stott? Or Maya Forstater? Or Rosie Kay? Google them.

Eventbrite is a privately owned company and they may have made decisions over certain events that they deemed to carry a message that is contrary to their beliefs as a company. In the same way any Catholic owned events company would likely not host a pro abortion event.

That is their choice and right. It doesn’t stop the event from taking place and there are many ticketing agencies these events could be marketed through. I don’t think their personal choice equates to silencing. They as a private company have the right to stock whatever product they want unless you think private companies should be forced to see products that don’t want to?

Most private companies these days have pro transgender rights policies and if someone with a high profile position at one of those companies speaks in contradiction to those principals then it can and does lead to employment conflicts as it would if someone stood up and said gay men are unatural and immoral.

But I’ll ask again, what has this to do with your statement that Morrissey has gone through deliberate silencing tactics over the past decade? He doesn’t work for anyone and you haven’t explained what you mean?

You seem to be entirely focused on the transgender feminist issue and I don’t see the relevance to what Morrissey said about freedom to speak?
 
Many feminists have had their meetings 'cancelled' by Eventbrite.
And have you never heard of Kathryn Stott? Or Maya Forstater? Or Rosie Kay? Google them.

Was Gary Lineker subjected to the same silencing tactics? Was his freedom to speak taken away and his job taken away?
 
Back
Top Bottom