freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 9:06am:


I really wasn't joking when I stated before that I have explained it at length - reply #95 to be precise. It was one of those posts that you responded to with one of your usual brain-dead sentence-by-sentence replies. So of course I ignored it. Its a shame that you didn't feel the need to engage me sensibly then - as you seem interested in doing now. But feel free to refresh your memory to find the answer to your question - and feel even more free to engage me on it sensibly.

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:26am:


Laughable coming from someone who sets up a forum with swear word sensors, and whose official policy is to censor/ban people for making personal insults (though rarely enforced). Presumably for FD 'the right to be offensive' is the be-all and end-all - except in forums and conversations he organises himself. Makes sense right? 

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:02am:


Like I said, I often find myself having to explain this concept to people here, including you plenty of times. Freedom of speech does not mean compulsion on anyone else's behalf to publish you.

What version of freedom of speech are you the standard bearer for?

Quote:


Free speech has nothing to do with facilitation. It is a freedom, not a compulsion.

What version of freedom of speech are you the standard bearer for? The one where people are compelled to facilitate? You have spent the best part of 10 pages avoiding saying what you are the standard bearer for, and now you are trying to change the subject again.

Quote:


No Gandalf, it is demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of what you claim to be a standard bearer for. There are all sort of standards and cultures in online forums. Me choosing one for this forum says nothing about what I consider to be important in general. I use a variety of online forums that I consider to be important despite having completely different standards to the ones I set here.

Quote:


No they are not Gandalf. You would be right if I stated that freedom of speech implies a compulsion to publish. Like I keep explaining to you, over and over again, I do not think this.

This is just another attempt by you to undermine freedom of speech by destroying its meaning while pretending to support it. That is why this discussion is now about my interpretation of freedom of speech - because you have none, despite claiming to be the standard bearer for it.

Quote:


If you have an alternative interpretation of freedom of speech, beyond "I don't know what the answer is", now would be the time to put it forward Gandalf. I cannot agree with you if you do not claim to know anything about it.

Quote:


You seem to think free speech is a person Gandalf.

Quote:


Of course. They would probably be exactly the same. The difference being that I am not using that argument to restrict anyone's freedom of speech. Once more, very slowly for you - freedom of speech is not a compulsion on others to publish. You'll notice the internal consistency in my argument here - I apply the same standard to myself as I do to others. Your argument is no less stupid than those who argued against free speech for Charlie Hebdo because even they exercise editorial control. You can only make this argument because you attach no meaning to freedom of speech, or actively seek to undermine any meaning, and that use it with a different meaning from sentence to sentence.

You have previously criticised me for being some kind of freedom of speech extremist, at the same time as criticising me for not living up to the extremism you project onto me Gandalf. You are doing the same here. If you were sincere about being a standard bearer for freedom of speech (or 'western liberal morals' depending on how you want to spin it at the time) you would know what it meant instead of fumbling for a criticism of those who do.

Quote:


I don't make a habit of swearing and insulting people in real life either. This does not mean I think the government should dictate what offence is permissible.

Quote:


Correct. My decision was based on what I see as most encouraging for political debate, rather than my own personal standards. It was a strategic decision. I would prefer not to have to babysit people at all, but I know that would not work.

Quote:


Yes it does. Here's another way of putting it "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This does not mean I think free speech excludes polite speech. Rather, it means that offence is the first to go when freedom of speech is undermined. It is no no way inconsistent to have the strictest personal standards while defending the right of others to have far lower standards. This is what freedom of speech means. It is the essence of all forms of freedom.

Quote:


You are splitting hairs here Gandalf. I am not going to argue with you over the meaning of be-all. Freedom of speech includes the right to say things that people find find offensive. It includes the right to mock Muhammed, and to do so exclusively, inelegantly and in poor taste. Whether this is truly the "be-all" is more meaningless waffle. However it absolutely must include that, and such offence is the first target of the censor, and the particular case of mocking Muhammed is at the pointy end of current global efforts to erode freedom of speech.

Quote:


They are entirely consistent, because, as I keep telling you, free speech implies no compulsion to publish. Me making an entirely strategic decision in the running on this forum that is completely detached from my views on freedom of speech does not contradict those views on freedom of speech in any way. You keep insisting that it is obviously at odds with my views, but you are yet to explain how, because it relies on you ignoring what I actually say.

Freedom of speech says nothing at all about what is right, what is constructive, what is moral, ethical or good, and you confuse the issue to insist it does, and to use the term interchangably with morals. You would replace freedom of speech with a whole gamut of conflicting personal values instead of just letting it be what it simply is. You insist that this is a distortion of what freedom is, but it is the essence of freedom. You are free to be an ass, but choosing not to be is not a rejection of freedom or a different kind of freedom, because you are equally free to not be an ass. The choice you make is irrelevant to the meaning of the freedom you are exercising.

This is why you have such trouble pinning down what you are a standard bearer for.

Quote:


No it doesn't. I just said this to you about half a dozen ways Gandalf.

Quote:


Of course. I have been saying things without actually saying them again. Or even saying the exact opposite.

Gandalf do you find it surprising that people only go on about freedom of speech when others try to take it away? What do you expect might happen if there was a serious movement to make people too scared to openly mock Jesus?

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 9:06am:


Thanks for answering the question, FD. A good answer too.

A supplementary if I may: have your views on freedom changed since you started the site?

Please answer the question. I'd rather not start a new thread.

FD your problem is looking at this only in terms of a simplistic "allowed" or "not allowed" dichotomy. Maybe you're right, and the distinction is too subtle for you. In fact so much of this debate seems too subtle for you. For example how on earth you could come to the conclusion that the only, or even the primary grievance muslims feel over the cartoon furor is that people mock Muhammad - is beyond me.