Freedom of speech is a concept very misunderstood and its a term that is a bit mi

sleading. Technically everyone has freedom of speech, as one can utter whatever
thought they like from their mouths, the real question is which thoughts express
ed loudly should face criminal repercussions.
If you think you have a right to ask or demand authorities or the state punish s
omeone for what they say that you find unpleasant this displays explicit support
for totalitarianism unless its is a encitement to physically harm you. Those who
are genuinely (and don't just call themselves "liberals"cos it perceived as goo
d thing in the west and to distinguish one from islamofascists ) should only sup
port action against one where one incites violence. I've never heard a convincin
g reason to censor/ban/block someone for any other reason then when they entice
violence and I welcome anyone to give me a persuasive argument. I pretty much ag
ree with John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" on this.
"ohhh cos he was annoying/upset me" is a feeble childish reason and the only rea
son provided so far to justify banning on many a time. There's annoying people a
t work and I don't demand they be sacked.
If's someone's a dick that's there right to be a dick and it's your right to ign
ore them. You don't have no obligation to be kind to anyone you don't want to be
kind towards, but if you're not kind to someone who hasn't been a dick in turn
it could make you look like a dick.
If a grown adult cusses my mum, he makes himself look stupid enough, he has the
rope to hang himself, I wouldn't dignify him with a response or stop him saying
what he is. He can continue if he likes and everyone can see what an nincompoop
he is, likewise one posing Nazi propoganda will receive the same antipathy if it
's propoganda or blatant jewphobia. Reply to it or ignore it, simple choice. Li
kewise a lot of people waste their time gossiping about others, I got no interes
t in that and would rather discuss ideas and knowledge.
Nazism/The Holocaust are historical claims and it should be anyone's prerogative
to challenge popular narratives skeptically just the same as people challenge i
slams historical origins. On many muslim forums you'd get banned for even sugges
ting islam was a later product of arab imperialism, I'd like to think & hope mod
s on CEMB are better than that.
I hear/read people say hurtful and offensive things all the time, many of which
I find deeply wounding myself, The Quran itself could not be more demeaning to n
on-muslims, however I don't throw my toys out of the pram all the time and I don
't call for the quran to be banned. In fact I want more people to know what a ne
farious book the quran is.
banning/censoring views which one find disagreeable or offensive is "illiberal"
and "fascistic". It's kinda ironic that many people here oppose theocrats but mi
mic them in many ways.
As Voltaire said "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your righ
t to say it" and as as Chomsky says "If we don't If we don't believe in freedom
of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all". As one who
adheres fully to liberal principles unless one says something to instruct/encite
violence then there is no valid excuse/reason I've heard to ban/censor/block an
yone. There's always been an element in the irreligious far left, that adheres t
o Stalin's far-left principles when it comes to censorship.
Also regards pro nazi sympathies/views, if you can't refute someone espousing pr
o-nazi views you have no business being in a conversation with anyone. You can e
ither ignore them or rebuke them. Banning/censoring them if anything adds more w
eight to there argument as it comes across as being unable to show why it's inco
rrect.