Direct link to twitter: www.twitter.com/nickmargerrison
Direct link to podcast: http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/
Or click on the massive iTunes button to subscribe to the podcast...

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes

thecultofnick

Do you hate speech? The "No hate speech movement".

Click on the above to read an interesting conversation with a group who I cordially invite to be interviewed on my podcast whenever they have a UK representative with a landline available... If you're not familliar with twitter you need to click on the 7:39 PM - 22 Jun 13 bit. That should reveal all the replies and give you a sense of the conversation.

Some of the key points include:
Questions from there were:





At points, as with any twitter conversation, we went round in circles a bit. Partly because I was seeking a very simple answer to the following very simple question, 'have you personally ever been incited to hate by the words of another?'.

If the problem these characters were dealing with were a tangible one, such as drug or alcohol addiction this would be a simple question with the likely answer being, yes. It's not though, they're dealing with something which is at its heart intangible and usually only ever seen in others with whom the establishment disagrees. I advocate freedom of speech and the right for people to choose for themselves who and what to regard. So called "hate speech" seems to me a very good way for people who HATE FREE SPEECH to attack without addressing an argument. This breeds ignorance, it's the reason racism continues to this day. A racist challenged on their core beliefs may change their mind, one who is attacked, fined and vilified will only become a martyr to their cause. Furthermore this idea that they're only racist because someone else told them to be is absurd, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

If you check the time line I ask this question numerous times. They establish they are non-political in the timeline frequently although I am skeptical of this. Fortunately for me a volunteer jumps in and their first answer to my often asked question backs up my hunches:

Oh, so for this volunteer a curious new defninition of "non-political" is at work here.

This blog entry is partly written to try and force somone from this campaign, who have chosen to follow me on twitter, to account for themselves with a short 1 hour telephone interview with a representative in the UK. I await their response. I'm easily contacted on Twitter.

Nick Margerrison.

4 comments:

Janine said...

So it can't be apolitical to object to hate-speech, because some politicians engage in it? I think it's you who has a curious (and over-extended) definition of "political".

As for hate-speech itself, you massively oversimplify the mechanism by which it works (intentionally or otherwise) to incite hostility or violence. And you seem to have totally missed out how often it is done by political parties, and how harmful the results can be to the most vulnerable in society.

It's *almost* as if you're deliberately creating a straw man here. Just because you may not understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Looks to me like you've been asking the wrong questions, perhaps out of some misconception about the whole thing. Shouldn't blame the campaign for that...

Nicholarse said...

"you seem to have totally missed out how often it is done by political parties"

Explain to me again how your campaign is apolitical?

While you're at it, define your terms. What is "hate speech"?

Janine said...

The campaign is nothing to do with me, and I have nothng to do with it, so it is not in any sense "my" campaign. I just don't like dangerous non-arguments (of which this article is one).

However, I will say that any campaign is apolitical as long as it does not favour (or disfavour) one particular political party over others. Since hate-speech is carried out by all parties, objecting to it wherever it occurs is therefore not in itself political, and it seems a bit silly at best and tin-foil-hatty at worst, to suggest that it is.

It's like saying that being anti-paedophiles is political simply because some political figures of a particular political persuasion may be suspected of being paedophiles. Do you see?

I know you requested very politely that I should define "my" terms, but frankly I can't be bothered to do your googling for you. Hate-speech is fairly well-defined in law, and I respectfully suggest you go look it up.

Peace and love.

Nicholarse said...

Sexual abuse of a child is an easily defined crime. No one reading this needs to google it were they to attempt to define it. It is also something which cannot be done unwittingly.

Not so "hate speech", as your reply shows. You "can't be bothered to google it" in an attempt to define it.

Furthermore I suspect "hate speech" is something one could be accused of and feel shocked and surprised by the accusation.

It interests me that you find my words "dangerous" perhaps you can elaborate?

Finally, do not be misled by the flowery language of these people. As you point out "hate speech" has been made into a crime. In addition to our nation's overly strict libel laws. The argument you back advocates punishing people for words, not deeds.

NM

PS - Don't take debate personally, pleased you have comments to make. Fan of hearing points of view, even ones I personally disagree with and others might "hate".

:o)

Follow by Email