I know. I'm just taking another poke at a ridiculous notion. 
Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
So, I read all ten examples in the second link. A couple were over drag shows, and one more (Georgetown) was also about pro-choice speech, in this case the refusal of the religiously-affiliated institution to recognize a pro-choice student group.
There's literally nothing about anyone being institutionally punished for the used of gendered language such as "mankind," exclusive use of the pronoun "he" in example lists, and that kind of thing.
So, WTF?
P.S. The other six of the ten examples had nothing to do with the topic or were so vague it was not possible to tell what they were about.
There's literally nothing about anyone being institutionally punished for the used of gendered language such as "mankind," exclusive use of the pronoun "he" in example lists, and that kind of thing.
So, WTF?
P.S. The other six of the ten examples had nothing to do with the topic or were so vague it was not possible to tell what they were about.
Last edited:
This quote from the film "The American President" summarizes my view fairly well:
Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
Last edited:
First, you need to define what "trouble" is?
Dead on. They're talking about burning the American flag, an activity I personally find revolting. But to stop a person from burning the flag, as long as they own the flag and there's no imminent danger of it setting something else on fire, violates their freedom of expression. So while I am certainly allowed to verbally abuse them and their cause as I see fit (the freedoms they are making use of apply to me as well), that is all I can do.
Also, in addition to my above remarks, legally banning hate speech is not in the same category as promoting the use of gender-neutral language. This doesn't even constitute a good faith on-point example.
If you want to engage in good-faith discussion, just dropping a few links to examples, most of which are irrelevant to the discussion and one of which is like this, that's not going to cut it.
I already said I had no idea if this action was being specifically taken. I don't live in the EU, and I use "no one" by personal preference anyway.
I was expressing a general concern about anyone receiving any punishment for choice of language. And I established that yes, that does happen.
I was expressing a general concern about anyone receiving any punishment for choice of language. And I established that yes, that does happen.
If I call you a c£*t or something similar in response to disagreeing with your views then I’m not going to get into trouble but you’d be well within your rights to punch me in the face
If I were to use the N word and voice publicly that black people are inclined towards criminality (a disgusting thing to say and not something I would ever say other than to make this example) or spoke about trans people being mentally unstable (also a disgusting thing to say) then this is clearly hate speech and should be treated as such - if said one to one with someone then they’d be within their rights to pursue a civil matter for hate speech, if said to incite greater problems then obviously open to criminal proceedings
Free speech does not equal the right to say whatever you want
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. Whether it's 1950 or 2024, the Constitution cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient.
I am neither black nor trans, so I will not use them as examples. But, if you say that people on the autism spectrum, which I am, are mentally defective and should be drowned in a bucket of water because they are a drain on society (and I am sure you have no such feeling, I am merely extending your prior example), that's definitely hate speech. But, in America, I have no right to punish you in any way. I cannot call the cops on you, and I cannot interfere with you. You have a Constitutional right to feel your hate, and to express it, no matter how much it might upset others. If you choose to act on your hate, and drown me or one of the ASD kids I work with in a bucket, that is a hate crime. And you will go to jail for it, assuming you haven't perished in the attempt.
Does that not align with what I said? The use of the speech to incite a hate crime (or doing it yourself) would fall under criminal law but that if I were to say it to you then you could pursue it on a civil level (although that would be entirely at your discretion)
Let’s take the law out of it and use the term previously noted which was “get into trouble”
If I said any of those things to you at work should I not then get in to trouble and be punished at work (likely through loss of job) for expressing it and therefore breaching company policies and generally being a terrible piece of shit?
No one should be jailed for accidental misgendering or preferring the phrase “where no man” but it is not right to say that no one should get in trouble for what they say as depending on the scale of the statement saying something improper should have consequences whether social (people think you are a dick for saying it so shun you somewhat), job wise (breach company policy through your speech and lose your job), civil (use language that is against protected characteristics and so sued for that speech) to criminal (I think all (insert pejorative word/phrase) are this and down with them)
That was what I meant - the additional category for me being civil whereby saying something offensive would be grounds for you to seek damages but not a criminal charge - so less than inciting but if you racially abuse a person (obviously not saying you personally would) for example that person should be within their rights to pursue the matter
Fair to say it would seem that we do agree that things should be a far way away from “not getting in trouble for something you said”
Indeed, yes. However, these days, many don't agree. There was an incident where a kid got censured by his school for wearing a T-shirt saying that there were two genders. I didn't include it because I don't consider getting asked to change and being sent home from school upon declining to be punishment per se. But it certainly was a denial of his right to express an opinion.
You will know US law better than I do but would a school be considered sufficiently private to be able to determine rules on acceptable expression on their premises?
Should there not also be consideration for the impact on those around you so whilst they are welcome to their opinion it should not be at the expense of others and causing them discomfort?
Or arguably with how politicised the topic is would it be a case of not expressing political opinions within the school?
not asking these in a “gotcha” way but not being from the US I’m looking to understand the matter better as it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me
So, you're saying that, if a child were sent home from grade school for wearing a T-shirt that said "Censorship is bullshit!" on it, that would be a denial of his right to express an opinion?
In general, the statement "students don't leave their rights at the schoolhouse gate" is noble, but false. In the case where those words were uttered, the decision was to allow a search (and the punishment for the contraband found) that would have been illegal elsewhere. Schools do place restrictions on apparel.
The best way to measure the fairness in banning an expression would be whether its opposite number was also banned... if the school prohibited rainbow or trans flag shirts, its ban on a shirt proclaiming two genders would be appropriate. But if it permitted expressions from one side of the gender debate but blocked expressions from the other... that means that the school is actively enforcing a political viewpoint.
The best way to measure the fairness in banning an expression would be whether its opposite number was also banned... if the school prohibited rainbow or trans flag shirts, its ban on a shirt proclaiming two genders would be appropriate. But if it permitted expressions from one side of the gender debate but blocked expressions from the other... that means that the school is actively enforcing a political viewpoint.
So, you're saying that, if a child were sent home from grade school for wearing a T-shirt that said "Censorship is bull" on it, that would be a denial of his right to express an opinion?
Depends on if another student was allowed to stay while wearing a shirt that said "Racism is bull
" or "Homophobia is bull". If those students were sent home, then it would clearly be about the use of the S-word. If only the "Censorship is bull" shirt got... well, censored, that would be censorship.
I would disagree here as it is a matter of fact that LGBTQ+ people exist
If the t shirt however expressed an opinion that was anti m/f then that would be different as it would also be denying the rights of people
You misquoted me. I didn't say "bullDepends on if another student was allowed to stay while wearing a shirt that said "Racism is bull
," I said "bullshit."You didn't answer the question. Yes, I meant about use of the S-word.
