Freedom of Speech; a foregone value in the West (Roosh V)

[BoxingSpecialist2]

There was a time when freedom of speech was considered an inherent aspect of any democracy and any state-member of Western civilization. Since the 1990's we've seen Western governments, Western media, and the "establishment" become increasingly hive-like in their thinking, totalitarian, and intolerant. What is truly ironic is that the establishment is one that claims to practise "tolerance" for women, gays, and minorities, but of course the very same establishment seems to afford no tolerance whatsoever to differing viewpoints other than their own.

Roosh V, an Iranian-American blogger who describes himself as a "neomasculinist" (you can read a portfolio of his beliefs here: http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity) has been attacked, discredited, and even denied entry into Canada, the UK, and Australia by the "establishment" for his views on supporting traditional gender roles, pointing out that scientifically races and genders are not equal, and being anti-socialist.

Some people are even campaigning to have him thrown in jail and/or charged with hate crime legislation for simply expressing his views. The ridiculous part, is that this may in fact happen, and many of the people publicly speaking out against Roosh V are those in positions of power (mayors, lawmakers, law enforcement, and so on).

I think it's safe to say that it is no longer acceptable to voice non-politically correct viewpoints in public. Going to jail is a very real possibility. The West is beginning to look like Nazi Germany did in the 1930's.

Here are some topics that are politically incorrect and an absolute no go in public (lest you want to risk literally going to jail or being charged with hate crime laws).
- Questioning the account or extent of the Holocaust
- Voicing opinions that are pronuclear family
- Voicing opinions that support traditional gender roles
- Pointing out scientific facts regarding differences between races and genders
- Correlating race and intelligence (even though there is considerable scientific evidence in support of)
- Correlating race and crime (even though there is considerable scientific evidence in support of).

We've reached a point in time where political correctness is now prioritized over the truth or scientific findings for that matter.

Anyone who goes against the establishment narriative (like Roosh V) is publicly disgraced, criminally charged, ostracized, shunned, or excommunicated. An erosion in freedom of speech within a democracy is on par with voting fraud, quite literally. If the establishment would attack and seek to censor opposition viewpoints, can you really trust them with counting votes and doing an election? I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the vote counting process in the West (Canada, USA, UK ) after something like this...

 

[BoxingSpecialist2]

After being reported by feminists, twitter closed down the account of Roosh.

Very sad. He has broken no laws, and is simply shut down because twitter doesn't agree with his choice of words (expressing pro-heterosexual, and pro-family viewpoints).

Let this be a lesson to us all that this kind of speak is no longer tolerated on the public front.

 

[Ambrose]

After being reported by feminists, twitter closed down the account of Roosh.

Very sad. He has broken no laws, and is simply shut down because twitter doesn't agree with his choice of words (expressing pro-heterosexual, and pro-family viewpoints).

Let this be a lesson to us all that this kind of speak is no longer tolerated on the public front.

Fellow poster:

While I understand your statements as one party limiting, or, in this case, interdicting a man's expressions, Twitter is not "public". Twitter is a private online communication service that provides free-of-service-charge rights of use; but, those rights are conditional and changeable at any time. In exchange for the rights to use Twitter, an account holder must follow Twitter rules.

Your complaint is not entirely different than if you were invited to speak on private property and, having said something that the property holder objects to, you argue it is a trespass on your rights to be there rather than the property holder's right to have you leave.

This man Roosh may still express his views, he simply needs to seek another venue.

 

[Don Wassall]

This is how it worked pre-internet -- "heretics" were marginalized by being ignored or barred from print and visual media, including being denied the right to buy advertising. When mentioned, their views were/are always heavily distorted at best, when not being outright smeared.

The internet is going the same way -- non-"mainstream" sites are being marginalized by search engines, and the "mainstream" sites are slowly but surely ending comments (or heavily monitoring them), while giants like Facebook and Twitter are more and more censoring free speech to please "social justice warrior" totalitarians.

We still have free speech on the internet but it is being relegated to marginalized ghettos that are hard to find and which are condemned as "disreputable."

BTW, Roosh obviously isn't "pro-rape." His "crime" is being too successful and bold in educating men about feminism and the bad aspects of female nature that have been unleashed and rewarded by feminism and backed by government laws and force in Western countries.

 

[BoxingSpecialist2]

Fellow poster:

While I understand your statements as one party limiting, or, in this case, interdicting a man's expressions, Twitter is not "public". Twitter is a private online communication service that provides free-of-service-charge rights of use; but, those rights are conditional and changeable at any time. In exchange for the rights to use Twitter, an account holder must follow Twitter rules.

Your complaint is not entirely different than if you were invited to speak on private property and, having said something that the property holder objects to, you argue it is a trespass on your rights to be there rather than the property holder's right to have you leave.

This man Roosh may still express his views, he simply needs to seek another venue.

Allow me to re-express myself;

Although you are technically correct that twitter is a private online communication, it is very much considered a "mainstream" dialogue similar to facebook, mainstream advertisements, or the mainstream media. Roosh being shut down and forcibly removed from mainstream dialogue due to his gender commentary is largely similar to David Duke being shut down from the mainstream media for his racial commentary (something which Duke himself has commented on, and says he is only brought on as a measured opponent). In both cases, yes, the medium is "private" but it is also mainstream and nationally-reaching.

You suggest for Roosh to seek another venue, but there is no other comparable venue. The best Roosh can hope for, and is doing, is to voice his opinion independently but then he is of course reaching a much smaller audience. Just like David Duke, who now has to support himself independently or through an "alternative community".

Moreover may I remind you the media in a democracy is supposed to have a duty of being impartial and practicing freedom of speech. In fact, North Americans have a tendency to be critical of other countries' perceived lack of media partiality and freedom of speech, meanwhile we're not much better right here. There are plenty of topics that are censored at the mainstream level. You are correct that these institutions are private, but they still have these obligations. And if all mainstream private platforms censor people like Roosh and David Duke, it puts them at a tremendous disadvantage to get their ideas out. Twitter qualifies as a mainstream media and their actions in shutting Roosh down shows a disagreement with the aforementioned duties. Also, as far as I know he never broke any of their listed rules. He was shut down because they didn't like what he was saying.

 

[Ambrose]

This is how it worked pre-internet -- "heretics" were marginalized by being ignored or barred from print and visual media, including being denied the right to buy advertising. When mentioned, their views were/are always heavily distorted at best, when not being outright smeared.

The internet is going the same way -- non-"mainstream" sites are being marginalized by search engines, and the "mainstream" sites are slowly but surely ending comments (or heavily monitoring them), while giants like Facebook and Twitter are more and more censoring free speech to please "social justice warrior" totalitarians.

We still have free speech on the internet but it is being relegated to marginalized ghettos that are hard to find and which are condemned as "disreputable."

BTW, Roosh obviously isn't "pro-rape." His "crime" is being too successful and bold in educating men about feminism and the bad aspects of female nature that have been unleashed and rewarded by feminism and backed by government laws and force in Western countries.

Don:

Particular facts do not support this opinion:

1) Search engines and websites that you deem to be "mainstream" are private property and therefore may devise methods to marginalize, edit, and monitor searches just as the proprietor of castefootball.us may chose to do at the proprietor's election.

2) There is no "free speech" on private property but, rather, this contract: in exchange for your expressions which you give to the service provider, you receive the space and place to make those expressions on.

Oh well; all we can do is move on if we don't like it and build our own space and place -like the proprietor of castefootball.us has done.

 

[Ambrose]

Moreover may I remind you the media in a democracy is supposed to have a duty of being impartial and practicing freedom of speech

You're conflating something here: none have the right to impose "democracy" on your property (like in your house), why do you complain "democracy" ought to be imposed on another's property?

 

[Don Wassall]

Don:

Particular facts do not support this opinion:

1) Search engines and websites that you deem to be "mainstream" are private property and therefore may devise methods to marginalize, edit, and monitor searches just as the proprietor of castefootball.us may chose to do at the proprietor's election.

2) There is no "free speech" on private property but, rather, this contract: in exchange for your expressions which you give to the service provider, you receive the space and place to make those expressions on.

Oh well; all we can do is move on if we don't like it and build our own space and place -like the proprietor of castefootball.us has done.

Professor:

I didn't write that "mainstream" media aren't private property, did I? In fact, your point 1. is close to a summary of what I did write -- namely that large conglomerations of corporate power, sometimes combined with government power, marginalize opinions, individuals and organizations they feel threatened by or potentially threatened by.

We're not students here. I've been at this for over 30 years; I know how the system works.

 

[Ambrose]

Professor:

I didn't write that "mainstream" media aren't private property, did I? In fact, your point 1. is close to a summary of what I did write -- namely that large conglomerations of corporate power, sometimes combined with government power, marginalize opinions, individuals and organizations they feel threatened by or potentially threatened by.

We're not students here. I've been at this for over 30 years; I know how the system works.

Then, as you understand, what is the complaint? I do not understand.

 

[Don Wassall]

Uh, you mean because I have the same "right" to marginalize and "build my own space" as large corporations and the government, that it's therefore a level playing field?

 

[Ambrose]

Uh, you mean because I have the same "right" to marginalize and "build my own space" as large corporations and the government, that it's therefore a level playing field?

Are you asking if you have the same rights on the world wide web as any other domain?

 

[Don Wassall]

You know exactly what my point is.

 

[Ambrose]

You know exactly what my point is.

No, I don't. What is your point above?

I have already made the point that complaining about the rules-of-use of the likes of Twitter or Facebook has no merits. It is not a free speech issue.

 

[Don Wassall]

I think all your "students" here understand the posts I have made in this thread, so re-read them if you want as I'm not going to keep repeating them just because the learned professor can't.

 

[BoxingSpecialist2]

North American mainstream media (CNN, Fox, MSNC, CBC in Canada, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) for the most part are private institutions but they tend to act as part of a larger system or establishment. If you are being censored or excommunicated from the mainstream platform, you need to host your opinions independently or as part of an alternative circle and it is infinitely more difficult to get your message across in the case of David Duke, Roosh V, or even a website such as this one by Don Wassall.

Saying that these media sources are private does not justify their agenda or absence of being impartial.

Unfortunately for people like David Duke, Roosh V, and this website it is that much harder to get noticed and get your point across when you are being censored by the establishment. Its Ok to say "build your own channels, or build your own websites", and to a point independent and alternative scenes can become popular. But it just makes things that much harder doesn't it? I'm sure Don Wassall could give an insight on that.

Btw, here in Canada we actually have politicians who have publicly spoke out to ban Roosh from visiting Canada. These are the people representing the people and it is significant to see their willingness to censor his viewpoints. These politicians clearly have no respect for freedom of speech. The mayor of Montreal, Calgary, and Toronto have all publicly condemned him and said he has no place in Canada for his views on gender. These politicians are representing the public sphere and they have afforded him no freedom to express himself, and more than that have made him feel unwelcome simply for his stated opinions.

In all honesty, if you're working at a corporate job, you probably need to be very careful right now with what you say in regard to gender, traditional families, and homosexuality. You likely would get fired for expressing views similar to Roosh, or those supporting a traditional outlook. It seems that political correctness is being enforced everywhere in society to the point it now trumps the truth of things.

 

[Ambrose]

In stead of complaining, why make use of platforms that limit expression? If teenagers and "youth" find it easy to not use Facebook or Twitter, why not adults?

 

[frederic38]

at one point there was concern because freedom of speech was in danger in GB, but right now i know some french activists who are living in london because they would be in prison in france so it got better

in european civilisations there was no freedom of speech but atleast they didn't pretend to have freedom of speech like the fake european countries of now

 

[frederic38]

this week in france another law was passed that makes it possible to put someone in prison for something he has said
it is just another one of those laws

3 days ago a youtube personality was sent to prison
he got a 1 and a half year sentence
at his trial they showed a video where he made a joke about hitler

there is nothing very clear about freedom of speech in france
the politicians continuously talk about how freedom of speech is important yet they put more and more people in prison because of what they say
some can say anything they want, others will be sent to prison for nothing
in france the only thing that matters is where you are coming from, if you are a member of the communist party or not etc
you cannot talk on french public television unless you are an official member of the communist party for example http://www.enquete-debat.fr/archive...assait-pas-a-france-3-on-savait-tout-ca-92653

recently also it surfaced in alternative media in france that a guy was drugged for years and sent to a psychiatric institution illegally because he was not a leftist yet he was very respected and had an important role in a leftist-controled group, and they wanted to silence him
the darkest days of the ussr are coming

 

[Ambrose]

this week in france another law was passed that makes it possible to put someone in prison for something he has said
it is just another one of those laws

3 days ago a youtube personality was sent to prison
he got a 1 and a half year sentence
at his trial they showed a video where he made a joke about hitler

there is nothing very clear about freedom of speech in france
the politicians continuously talk about how freedom of speech is important yet they put more and more people in prison because of what they say
some can say anything they want, others will be sent to prison for nothing
in france the only thing that matters is where you are coming from, if you are a member of the communist party or not etc
you cannot talk on french public television unless you are an official member of the communist party for example http://www.enquete-debat.fr/archives/gerard-jugnot-si-on-n’avait-pas-la-carte-du-parti-communiste-on-ne-passait-pas-a-france-3-on-savait-tout-ca-92653

recently also it surfaced in alternative media in france that a guy was drugged for years and sent to a psychiatric institution illegally because he was not a leftist yet he was very respected and had an important role in a leftist-controled group, and they wanted to silence him
the darkest days of the ussr are coming

Fred:

You live "in" France? Damn fool of a place to live. France has a civil code state which is very difficult to get away from. A man can still live as a man but its not easy and %99.9 of Frenchmen have no clue anymore how to live as a man while using the STATE for their benefit. But, you see, we here in North America, and the British Commonwealth, can live as man without much trouble if we know who we are and how to keep it. These are the common law lands where man is king if he knows how to be a man. You should get the hell out of Dodge and move to Britain -at least there a man can say what he wants as long as what he says causes no injury to another man.

 

[frederic38]

Fred:

You live "in" France? Damn fool of a place to live. France has a civil code state which is very difficult to get away from. A man can still live as a man but its not easy and %99.9 of Frenchmen have no clue anymore how to live as a man while using the STATE for their benefit. But, you see, we here in North America, and the British Commonwealth, can live as man without much trouble if we know who we are and how to keep it. These are the common law lands where man is king if he knows how to be a man. You should get the hell out of Dodge and move to Britain -at least there a man can say what he wants as long as what he says causes no injury to another man.

not enough beurettes in britain, i will consider moving when i am older

 

[fernchris55]

Fred:

You live "in" France? Damn fool of a place to live. France has a civil code state which is very difficult to get away from. A man can still live as a man but its not easy and %99.9 of Frenchmen have no clue anymore how to live as a man while using the STATE for their benefit. But, you see, we here in North America, and the British Commonwealth, can live as man without much trouble if we know who we are and how to keep it. These are the common law lands where man is king if he knows how to be a man. You should get the hell out of Dodge and move to Britain -at least there a man can say what he wants as long as what he says causes no injury to another man.

Wait there Ambrose, you know where Great Britain is heading, so Fred would be buying a few years at most before he'd be back in Paris, on the Thames. Just because they have (left) the EU and that remains (really) to be seen, they are still going full Orwellian over there. If he left France he'd do well to check out some of the former European colonies in the Carribean or just come to the U.S. and overstay his Visa and wait for the dear leader to amnestize his Azz hidden in the great Latino herd. Australia can be good living too if you stay away from the big cities.

First there was Gene Kelly, "An American in Paris."



Then there was Phillipe Petit, "A Frenchmen in Manhattan."



And now frederic 38, "A Gallic expat in search of freedom, but with a taste for beurettes." (and possibly other strange women)
Fred, no matter how tempting, Oil drilling is not good unless it's petroleum.

 

[frederic38]

i am not obsessed with freedom you know, a little bit of prison time wouldn't do much harm, but this double standard is really incredible
the left is so powerful in france that they can say pretty much anything and get away with it

 

[frederic38]

niafou + beurette lol, and we even have romani girls! you guys need to immigrate to france quick

 

[Ambrose]

Wait there Ambrose, you know where Great Britain is heading, so Fred would be buying a few years at most before he'd be back in Paris, on the Thames. Just because they have (left) the EU and that remains (really) to be seen, they are still going full Orwellian over there. If he left France he'd do well to check out some of the former European colonies in the Carribean or just come to the U.S. and overstay his Visa and wait for the dear leader to amnestize his Azz hidden in the great Latino herd. Australia can be good living too if you stay away from the big cities.

View attachment 1457

Great Britain can never go as "full Orwellian" as France, Germany, or any other civil code state. In France and in Germany a man can stand trial, and go to jail if the Court is convicted. That means the nutcases that are dictating what a man may think and say can lock a man up in a cage because he expresses a contrary view of something to what the State deems acceptable at any time, However, in Great Britain, and all of the Commonwealth nations, the magic of the common law stops this from happening as a man may hold and express any opinion, provided his expression does not cause a verifiable harm to another man. I'll give you a perfect example: Ernst Zundel was never put in jail during his fifty years in Canada for expressing a contrary view of the publicly accepted narrative of the Jewish WW2 holocaust. The Canadian State officials knew he could not be jailed whilst in Canada. So, Ernst was deported to Germany where he was jailed for his expressions contrary to the forced narrative of the German State.

What man can possibly testify before an open court that he is harmed because another man has a contrary view of history or even public policy than his???? Ah, the magic of the common law is not to be overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant! I know, I'm in court all the time. The law of our lands is simply superior to theirs.