I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

I think that refugee’s free speech was violated.

The accusation didn’t effect Mr potato head or cause him to lose money.

Tau.Neutrino said:

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

I think that refugee’s free speech was violated.

The accusation didn’t effect Mr potato head or cause him to lose money.

Does anyone here think Mr Potatohead’s reputation was effected?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

I think that refugee’s free speech was violated.

The accusation didn’t effect Mr potato head or cause him to lose money.

Does anyone here think Mr Potatohead’s reputation was effected?

affected.

watched that quite a way back now

I think British comedy entertainment often has something originated of jesters, that sort of thing, offers relief from social oppression, and internalized from that repression, it likely goes back thousands or tens of thousands of years really, comedic relief, probably our ancestors way back on the African savanna had it, who knows, doubtful human minds have changes much in the last three-hundred thousand years or more

you can’t be serious all day every day, every moment, be crushing just to have one constant angle on things, even babies like being amused, gets those good brain bubbles happening, the native effervescence, natural opioids or whatever, human adults notably retain some of the same characteristics of human infants, into old age if you’re lucky

fact is having a big brain with extra mind tools, self-aware consciousness and all that, involves a lot of inhibitory mechanisms, there’s plenty to inhibit, a lot a to keep in order, a lot of housekeeping

I guess some, perhaps quite a lot of humor, explores the territory of differences between what ‘we’ ought think, contrasted perhaps with and what a person really does think, or might think, or what is thinkable, explores the social containment, incorrect thoughts, expression of, plays with them

which in a way is maybe’s loosely related psychological correctness, which overlaps political correctness

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

I think that refugee’s free speech was violated.

The accusation didn’t effect Mr potato head or cause him to lose money.

Does anyone here think Mr Potatohead’s reputation was effected?

He was already widely despised for his actions and attitudes, and continues to be.

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

under constraint.

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think that refugee’s free speech was violated.

The accusation didn’t effect Mr potato head or cause him to lose money.

Does anyone here think Mr Potatohead’s reputation was effected?

He was already widely despised for his actions and attitudes, and continues to be.

As such, nothing has changed.

Are there any donation websites to his victim?

I hope the donations exceed the courts amount.

I don’t think that there’s a right to free speech.

And there never has been.

Take a government employee for instance. He/she can’t tell the press about their job concerns, and if they did then the press couldn’t print it.

“We want to see it’s just not another announcement without an actual delivery,” said Anthony Albanese.

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t think that there’s a right to free speech.

And there never has been.

Take a government employee for instance. He/she can’t tell the press about their job concerns, and if they did then the press couldn’t print it.

i’ve heard free speech from toddlers, they do quite well at it, get away with saying all sorts, no harm intended typically

learning the noises, that get to feel so refined later

I still go with speaking is breathing, there’s the tongue placement in the mouth too, lips, tongue, entire jaw, movement of all that, passage of air, and through the larynx of course

this writ alphabet though, that’s not breathing, not like speaking, vocalizing, spoken words dissipate, the sound travels away, the intensity declines, that inverse square law thing, nothing like these words writ here

yeah analogue air vibrations maybe have some benefits, being fade

imagine if peoples spoken words echoes around everywhere, never faded, the resulting clutter, be good reason not to say much at all

perhaps there is a digital equivalent, too much alphabet

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t think that there’s a right to free speech.

And there never has been.

Take a government employee for instance. He/she can’t tell the press about their job concerns, and if they did then the press couldn’t print it.

i’ve heard free speech from toddlers, they do quite well at it, get away with saying all sorts, no harm intended typically

learning the noises, that get to feel so refined later

I still go with speaking is breathing, there’s the tongue placement in the mouth too, lips, tongue, entire jaw, movement of all that, passage of air, and through the larynx of course

this writ alphabet though, that’s not breathing, not like speaking, vocalizing, spoken words dissipate, the sound travels away, the intensity declines, that inverse square law thing, nothing like these words writ here

yeah analogue air vibrations maybe have some benefits, being fade

imagine if peoples spoken words echoes around everywhere, never faded, the resulting clutter, be good reason not to say much at all

perhaps there is a digital equivalent, too much alphabet

..or all that hot air adding to global climate change..

KJW said:

I think today is an appropriate day to post this video:

Rowan Atkinson on free speech

One quote from the video that I’d like to highlight: “The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

2021 United States Capitol attack

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t think that there’s a right to free speech.

And there never has been.

Take a government employee for instance. He/she can’t tell the press about their job concerns, and if they did then the press couldn’t print it.

That’s a reasoned and reasonable statement.

Are you OK?

Ogmog said:

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

This is commonly touted by those who want to restrict your freedom of speech. In the context where it is usually used, it is a strawman argument.

KJW said:

Ogmog said:

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

This is commonly touted by those who want to restrict your freedom of speech. In the context where it is usually used, it is a strawman argument.

However
the context in which it originated
actual people were actually trampled to death
the example I used was pulled directly from that original link
used to illustrate incitement to violently over throw an established government

Not a Strawman In Sight

KJW said:

Ogmog said:

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

This is commonly touted by those who want to restrict your freedom of speech. In the context where it is usually used, it is a strawman argument.

that said, I agree;
it’s too often stretched to suit various agendas thus limiting speech
but then again, so is limiting protests by claiming it to be A Riot
in order to promote citizen vigilante justice.

there’s no end to stretching arguments in order to suit any agenda.

what’s a snowflake to do?

Ogmog said:

what’s a snowflake to do?

To quote Status Quo?
“like ice in the sun, I melt away”.

“If I Only Had A Brain”

Ogmog said:

KJW said:

Ogmog said:

Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

This is commonly touted by those who want to restrict your freedom of speech. In the context where it is usually used, it is a strawman argument.

that said, I agree;
it’s too often stretched to suit various agendas thus limiting speech
but then again, so is limiting protests by claiming it to be A Riot
in order to promote citizen vigilante justice.

there’s no end to stretching arguments in order to suit any agenda.

what’s a snowflake to do?

I agree with Ogmog on both counts.

I think Mr Bean* was being a little either-orist there. It is obviously true that “free speech” can be restricted too far, but it is also obviously true that some speech should be illegal, and other speech whilst not being illegal should be strongly condemned.

The question is where to draw the line (or lines), that’s all.

• Is it offensive to refer to Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean these days?

Perhaps I should call him Toby.

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

KJW said:

This is commonly touted by those who want to restrict your freedom of speech. In the context where it is usually used, it is a strawman argument.

that said, I agree;
it’s too often stretched to suit various agendas thus limiting speech
but then again, so is limiting protests by claiming it to be A Riot
in order to promote citizen vigilante justice.

there’s no end to stretching arguments in order to suit any agenda.

what’s a snowflake to do?

I agree with Ogmog on both counts.

I think Mr Bean* was being a little either-orist there. It is obviously true that “free speech” can be restricted too far, but it is also obviously true that some speech should be illegal, and other speech whilst not being illegal should be strongly condemned.

The question is where to draw the line (or lines), that’s all.

• Is it offensive to refer to Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean these days?

Perhaps I should call him Toby.

As in Jug?

JudgeMental said:

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

Why am I not surprised?

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

Why am I not surprised?

¿ that this Corruption Coalition government won’t help most victims, or that such a view was expressed by a communist so-called expert at the University of Melbourne ?

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

Why am I not surprised?

¿ that this Corruption Coalition government won’t help most victims, or that such a view was expressed by a communist so-called expert at the University of Melbourne ?

and a number of other descriptions as well.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

that said, I agree;
it’s too often stretched to suit various agendas thus limiting speech
but then again, so is limiting protests by claiming it to be A Riot
in order to promote citizen vigilante justice.

there’s no end to stretching arguments in order to suit any agenda.

what’s a snowflake to do?

I agree with Ogmog on both counts.

I think Mr Bean* was being a little either-orist there. It is obviously true that “free speech” can be restricted too far, but it is also obviously true that some speech should be illegal, and other speech whilst not being illegal should be strongly condemned.

The question is where to draw the line (or lines), that’s all.

• Is it offensive to refer to Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean these days?

Perhaps I should call him Toby.

As in Jug?

As in the friendly devil presiding over hell.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I agree with Ogmog on both counts.

I think Mr Bean* was being a little either-orist there. It is obviously true that “free speech” can be restricted too far, but it is also obviously true that some speech should be illegal, and other speech whilst not being illegal should be strongly condemned.

The question is where to draw the line (or lines), that’s all.

• Is it offensive to refer to Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean these days?

Perhaps I should call him Toby.

As in Jug?

As in the friendly devil presiding over hell.

I’ve heard they like to keep things informal there, as well as infernal.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

As in Jug?

As in the friendly devil presiding over hell.

I’ve heard they like to keep things informal there, as well as infernal.

That’s the very place :)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-11-30/online-bullying-trolling-identity-verification-legislation/100658084

JudgeMental said:

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-planned-anti-troll-laws-wont-help-most-victims-of-online-trolling-172743

“Finally, it’s worth noting that several of the highest-profile current plaintiffs in Australian defamation cases involving social media defamation are to be found among the government itself. So while it might sound cynical, we’re entitled to wonder whom this policy is really designed to help.”

Sorry,
sounds just a leeetle too much like U No Hoo whining about “Being Called Names”

C’mon… You know of whom I speak…

• ..THE Whiny Little Biotch*

btw, Toby ain’t got nuthin’ on this guy
concerning POLITICALLY INCORRECT