The guardian on free speech some debates should be shut ddown

[MindWars]

The Guardian on Free Speech: ‘Some Debates Should Be Shut Down’
The UK-based Guardian newspaper explains this week that silencing unpopular opinions is not a violation of free speech because “some debates should be shut down.”

Let shut you the fk down first u lying -----------h
this is the left this is who they are they hide it using different ways this is how the media control their morons your all so fkn dumbed own you refuse to listen to those trying to warn you in the end you often wake up and guess what it is waaaaay to late for you

NOTICE HOW QUITE OBAMA THE FK FACE AND CLINTON'S HAVE BEEN THEY WILL RISE UP RIGHT BEFORE ELECTION INTO FK THEIR SHEEPS MINDS UP A LITTLE MORE.

 

[Dekster]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

 

[DOTR]

By “when a particular debate has been won” leftists mean when they achieve power to silence alternative opinions. “We won...no more discussion” is the motto of the left.

We warned of this when the “hate speech” nonsense started and cultural Marxism, a soviet style movement otherwise know as “political correctness”, began to gain control of institutions.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

 

[Dekster]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

Governments have always been the ultimate decider, but I didn't take a position. I simply provided a link to the primary source with the actual statement less truncated than it was in Infowars summarizing Breitbarts summary.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

Governments have always been the ultimate decider, but I didn't take a position. I simply provided a link to the primary source with the actual statement less truncated than it was in Infowars summarizing Breitbarts summary.

I see.

I advise anyone who doesn't appreciate the risks America are taking by limiting speech and your Republic to come to Canada. Our economy is being slapped around by everyone. We are a low performing nation that rewards state loyalists and abusers. A nation of nepotism that has destroyed our reputation and economy via the destruction of civil liberties.

We now have fully laws that are being pushed aggressively that will limit speech on the internet, expanding the definition of "hate", and, a push to ban all guns in Canada (for private citizens anyways). This, on top of the covert and not so covert control of the economy by the apparatus.

 

[DOTR]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

Governments have always been the ultimate decider, but I didn't take a position. I simply provided a link to the primary source with the actual statement less truncated than it was in Infowars summarizing Breitbarts summary.

the Guardian is a very influential paper. They have been discussing for over two years how to limit speech. They are sort of acting as consigliere of the Marxists as they try and build a defensive framework for silencing opposition.
In the US the Washington Post leads the effort working with powerful internet and media companies.
A little ironic that “journalists” are leading the charge for censorship isn’t it?
Also it should be noted it was leftists who spent years attacking standards and decency in their effort to portray ever more depraved acts in their media.

 

[Dekster]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

Governments have always been the ultimate decider, but I didn't take a position. I simply provided a link to the primary source with the actual statement less truncated than it was in Infowars summarizing Breitbarts summary.

the Guardian is a very influential paper. They have been discussing for over two years how to limit speech. They are sort of acting as consigliere of the Marxists as they try and build a defensive framework for silencing opposition.
In the US the Washington Post leads the effort working with powerful internet and media companies.
A little ironic that “journalists” are leading the charge for censorship isn’t it?
Also it should be noted it was leftists who spent years attacking standards and decency in their effort to portray ever more depraved acts in their media.

It is an influential paper but the UK has a softer relationship with free speech than the US does, and the EU's is even softer. I have zero doubt that the avoiding more EU regulations and fines is why big tech is moving against the alt right. Has little to do with the US.

 

[Dekster]

What they said was "But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there." Here is the whole piece for those who don't want to end up in the trap of alt-right aggregators Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so | Martha Gill

Who decides what speech is acceptable and when an issue is, if ever, "won" and decided?

There are very narrow limits, such as those encouraging violence and crime (by this standard, you would see more covert Canadian police in prison than those already there, but I digress), otherwise, speak and debate.

Compare the free economy of America to Canada in particular (and many others). There's no contest. You are innovative, fast, nimble, pushing limits, technology and competition. Much of this stems from knowing from an early age that debate and discussion is great. Don't accept anything at face value and challenge norms and precedent. You limit free speech, have people on eggshells, you will hurt your economy in ways you couldn't have imagined.

It's a big reason why constricted societies like China have to steal your intellectual property and inventions. Their system is designed to be submissive and not challenge the Gods in government, yours encourages challenging!

Governments have always been the ultimate decider, but I didn't take a position. I simply provided a link to the primary source with the actual statement less truncated than it was in Infowars summarizing Breitbarts summary.

I see.

I advise anyone who doesn't appreciate the risks America are taking by limiting speech and your Republic to come to Canada. Our economy is being slapped around by everyone. We are a low performing nation that rewards state loyalists and abusers. A nation of nepotism that has destroyed our reputation and economy via the destruction of civil liberties.

We now have fully laws that are being pushed aggressively that will limit speech on the internet, expanding the definition of "hate", and, a push to ban all guns in Canada. This, on top of the covert and not so covert control of the economy by the apparatus.

The grass is always greener over the septic tank (Sorry I think that was the name of a book my grandmother had and it just always stuck with me)

When it comes to the internet, big tech is only going to do so much country filtering (that is bypassable anyway) so they will move in the direction of limiting speech regardless. It is just the practical reality of business more so than some philosophical exercise.