National - FFS!

[moka]

Not surprising though. Andrew Little can not wait to get rid of Winston so he can further restrict free speech, now he wants to ban what he calls hate speech against religion, the gay community and who knows what. He is a dangerous man.

This is not a discussion about the issues of free speech and hate speech. It is an attack against Andrew Little, who you say is a dangerous man.

It could be stated neutrally as Andrew Little wants to further restrict free speech and ban hate speech. And then there could be a discussion about whether or why that is dangerous.

[moka]

To be expected out of the Pike River disaster Union leader - first he contributed to the disaster, then he pretends he really cares for the victims and throws unlimited amounts of funding to 'bring the boys' home and then, he sobs that it 'may' not be possible.

And another comment that puts Andrew Little down and undermines his credibility, one that is intended to create prejudice. To put it simply Andrew Little is a bad person, and we shouldn’t trust him. Why? We don’t need to say why because we all know why.........

Is this hate speech?
The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality ...

[moka]

I read that manifesto. There was nothing in there that would even give a censor cause for concern. Maybe a PG rating, but there was no call to kill or anything like that. That leftist manifesto would pass most "hate speech" laws that are passed to this day.
There is plenty more turgid stuff freely available on the internet right now that is a lot worse.

The Chief Censor disagrees withh you as he did ban the manifesto.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...mosque-shooter
New Zealand’s chief censor has banned a document shared by the man allegedly responsible for killing 50 people in two Christchurch mosques.
David Shanks, the chief censor, officially classed the so-called manifesto as “objectionable” and told anyone in possession of it to destroy it.
“There is an important distinction to be made between ‘hate speech,’ which may be rejected by many right-thinking people, but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism,” Shanks said in making his decision.
He said the document “crosses the line” by promoting, encouraging and justifying acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people.

[moka]

Cindy suits her so well though - all fluff and no substance.

Think she will be wearing the hijab today?

Another personal attack with no substance. What don't you like? Who she is - a woman prime minister, the leader of the wrong party which never should have been running the country, which usurped the leadership from the rightful holders i.e. the National Party?

[dobby41]

And Grant Robertson knows only one thing - tax, borrow and spend.

You do realise that Goldsmith and Collins are doing the same - they just can't get their numbers right. Embarrassing for them when they keep saying that they are good at this.

[blackcap]

The Chief Censor disagrees withh you as he did ban the manifesto.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...mosque-shooter
New Zealand’s chief censor has banned a document shared by the man allegedly responsible for killing 50 people in two Christchurch mosques.
David Shanks, the chief censor, officially classed the so-called manifesto as “objectionable” and told anyone in possession of it to destroy it.
“There is an important distinction to be made between ‘hate speech,’ which may be rejected by many right-thinking people, but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism,” Shanks said in making his decision.
He said the document “crosses the line” by promoting, encouraging and justifying acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people.

I don't give a flying fcuk that the Chief Censor disagrees with me. This was banned for political reasons, not the actual content of the manifesto. If you ever get a chance to read it (obviously not when in NZ) and you will see what I mean.

[dobby41]

Meanwhile National's polling doesn't get better.
Well, it does get better than the 'rogue' poll but not nearly good enough.
On current polling Goldsmith wouldn't be back - maybe a good thing, they could replace him with someone who can add.

[Balance]

Meanwhile National's polling doesn't get better.
Well, it does get better than the 'rogue' poll but not nearly good enough.
On current polling Goldsmith wouldn't be back - maybe a good thing, they could replace him with someone who can add.

You mean like with Twyford who obviously can add according to you then but could not even deliver 5% of the Kiwibuild homes promised?

And that's after planning and budgeting since 2012 and he can be out by 95%!

Now that is the Mother of all budget screw ups & blow-outs!

And Twyford is still #4 on Cindy's ranking and Kiwibuild was one of Cindy’s main Electoral planks & big promises in the 2017 election too!

Great team Cindy has got!

[iceman]

This is not a discussion about the issues of free speech and hate speech. It is an attack against Andrew Little, who you say is a dangerous man.

It could be stated neutrally as Andrew Little wants to further restrict free speech and ban hate speech. And then there could be a discussion about whether or why that is dangerous.

Are you serious ? Clearly you are in the Little camp that wants to change the law to restrict everyone speaking out that has a different view to themselves. We have perfectly good laws already and no need to change them further to limit free speech. Andrew Little is hellbent on pushing this through and is a danger to free speech.

[BlackPeter]

Are you serious ? Clearly you are in the Little camp that wants to change the law to restrict everyone speaking out that has a different view to themselves. We have perfectly good laws already and no need to change them further to limit free speech. Andrew Little is hellbent on pushing this through and is a danger to free speech.

Well, I am not in the Little camp ... and I haven't even seen the recent proposals (I assume there are some, are they?). However - free speech without limitations is more dangerous than any weapon of mass destruction. A nuclear bomb kills maybe some hundred thousands, the free speech used by hate preachers, racists, pick you color supremacists and conspiracy theorists can (and sometimes does) kill millions and can create wide spread misery for centuries or millennia (just look at what most of the big religions did to humanity and its continuous conflicts). People still kill in the name of Mohammad or Jesus or whoever else - despite these people being dead for more than one millenium. Hitler did (to the best of my knowledge) not kill a single jew personally - however his words killed many millions.

Unimpeded free speech is a dangerous thing. Now, obviously I realise that there are already restrictions (and I feel comfortable with them in a democratic society), but a discussion on this subject is clearly legitimate and not a justification to put people down just because you don't like their views.

People spreading hate are dangerous and inciting violence. Other people die because of this "free speech".
Antivaxxers spreading their lies are dangerous and their message does kill innocent people (mainly children).
Racists spreading their fear and stupidity are dangerous - and inflaming conflicts and generating genocides.
A president dividing his people is dangerous and destroying the base his people need to thrive long term.
So many other examples ....

I think that a people as well as humanity are better off if they do have some sensible rules how to use our most dangerous weapon - the word.

Of cause - no free speech at all is as bad as all free speech, but you do need some sort of golden middle in between. Discussing where this optimum is should be sensible and allowed.

BTW - I do see some irony in a promotor of free speech calling somebody who is using this right of free speech to propose some limitations "a dangerous man". Don't you?