Khabib Interview in Turkey (Translation)

[frontkick1]

Nope. You misunderstood. I said hate speech should be protected. I never said hate speech is without consequence.

and i'm saying free speech is not without consequences.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

and i'm saying free speech is not without consequences.

right, so we are back to our earlier discussion, show me some consequences to free speech in the US similar to charlie hebdo or are you going to say it's not comparable because there aren't as many violent islamic extremists living in the US? which is my point thanks.

 

[frontkick1]

I gave reasons why it should be protected. You are misrepresenting my argument.

i'm not sure i'm misinterpreting you but you sure are deliberatly misinterpreting my sayings

 

[TheChosenOne]

and i'm saying free speech is not without consequences.

Right wing SJWs don't like consequences. They want mommy, daddy and the gooberment to protect them like typical pussies.

 

[Shogun439]

yes hate speech should be protected as long as it is not threatening anyone with violence, that's the point of free speech.

Your definition of hate speech is not complete, here an example from Wikipedia:

"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group."

Although it is constitutionally protected in the US, it is prohibited to do so in france:
"France's penal code and press laws prohibit public and private communication that is defamatory or insulting, or that incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or group on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity—for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[28]"

This same Charlie Hebdo you keep crying about fired one of their longest serving cartoonists for publishing a cartoon that joked about Sarkozy's son never having to worry about money because he married a Jewish woman. Jewish groups in France protested the stereotype and Hebdo reacted by getting rid of their most famous and respected cartoonists. This was years before the incident you're bitching about.

They acted like cowards and surrendered the moral high ground a long time ago. They're nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, as are their supporters who ignored what happened to that cartoonist.

As Kaiowas stated - Its just hypocritical to denounce one population and to bow down for the other.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

and i'm saying free speech is not without consequences.

I agree except to the extent that there are consequences from government.

 

[frontkick1]

right, so we are back to our earlier discussion, show me some consequences to free speech in the US similar to charlie hebdo or are you going to say it's not comparable because there aren't as many violent islamic extremists living in the US? which is my point thanks.

man doesn't your country have a recent history of racial segregation that is still rempant nowadays ? issues with strong mass killing in school, churchs, concert ans so on....?
you should never point at others violence.

 

[frontkick1]

Nope. You misunderstood. I said hate speech should be protected. I never said hate speech is without consequence.

Saying something hateful is not a crime.

Violently attacking someone is a crime.

only in the US. that's what you fail to understand.

 

[frontkick1]

Right wing SJWs don't like consequences. They want mommy, daddy and the gooberment to protect them like typical pussies.

harsh but true

 

[frontkick1]

now i'm done with this discussion

 

[king_ebeneezer]

only in the US. that's what you fail to understand.

I get that france polices people's speech. Saying something offensive shouldn't be a crime though.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

man doesn't your country have a recent history of racial segregation that is still rempant nowadays ? issues with strong mass killing in school, churchs, concert ans so on....?
you should never point at others violence.

I would rather have freedom than security.

France doesn't have either. You are not free to say what you want and if a violent criminal wants to attack they will.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

now i'm done with this discussion

You tapped out.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

man doesn't your country have a recent history of racial segregation that is still rempant nowadays ? issues with strong mass killing in school, churchs, concert ans so on....?
you should never point at others violence.

None are related to freedom of speech

 

[frontkick1]

You tapped out.

never !!!
just realise i have a life

 

[frontkick1]

I would rather have freedom than security.

France doesn't have either. You are not free to say what you want and if a violent criminal wants to attack they will.

lol
yet every single american citizen beg for security and safety from the government.
and it's well known that france is a totally insecure dictatorship....^^

 

[frontkick1]

None are related to freedom of speech

jesus christ you guys have such terrible reasoning. it's unbelievable ^^

 

[KhaBeiber]

Lots of uneducated racist Trump supporters in the forum.

P.s Trump is liar, he made up this whole story about his friend in New York working his ass off to get the New York Stock Exchange opened the next business day after September 11 when it infact it only opened after about a week on the 17th September.

(Time stampped)

 

[YellowBanenoo]

actually make sense if you study the post-colonialism france there was a lot of antisemitism, anti-muslim, blacks sentiments the french government closed up university that was pushing these sentiments in 2002
keep in mind many muslims stood with charlie after the attacks in france however outside france they were splitted
''Freedom of speech always has limits. Nobody believes that racial vilification should be legal. Nobody believes that advocating violence should be legal. Nobody believes that harassment should be legal. Nobody believes that publicly approving of terrorism should be legal. Nobody believes that threatening people should be legal. Even the most dedicated, die-hard free speech zealots agree that all of these things should be against the law. Freedom of speech always has to be balanced against other freedoms, such as freedom from racial vilification. Everyone recognizes that freedom of speech is not absolute, and nobody is saying that it is. But the international response to Charlie Hebdo does not seem to take this into account.''
great article

So making a joke about religion is supposed to be proposing violence ?? lol

Or is it just muslims are so overly insecure, they take every jab towards their religion as life-threatening attack.

Who decides the limit? Who decides whether the speech even instigates violence or not?

Do you even realize what this retard is claiming is not much different from blaming rape victim for wearing slutty outfit??

 

[YellowBanenoo]

Lots of uneducated racist Trump supporters in the forum.

P.s Trump is liar, he made up this whole story about his friend in New York working his ass off to get the New York Stock Exchange opened the next business day after September 11 when it infact it only opened after about a week on the 17th September.

(Time stampped)

>Shits on Trump and his supporters
>Proceeds to bring up Hillary's errand boy.
> all while living a Chinese colony.



This is rich.