Ok, same applies if it was alt-left/extreme left liberals takeover

Yes it does. That is also why there should be limits on 'free' speech. Look at the history of the French revolution.

The issue is who decides those limits? You? me? Trump? Adern" Bridges? China's leader? Russia's leader? mEach of those think their view is the correct view. So it gets decided by who has the power today, or next year or next decade

I don't see the problem. Public opinion in this country saw the Canadians denied a platform. And it was public opinion, not just the decision of the council or a private venue owner. Those decisions were driven by public opinion. Likewise, the banning of Brash was widely ridiculed and denounced, and is unlikely to happen again. Public opinion had a balancing effect. This discussion is part of that. I think the way we do things here is much better and more reasoned than the way these things are done in America or Australia. I think we have it about right.

Rikkitic:

 

I don't see the problem. Public opinion in this country saw the Canadians denied a platform. And it was public opinion, not just the decision of the council or a private venue owner. Those decisions were driven by public opinion. Likewise, the banning of Brash was widely ridiculed and denounced, and is unlikely to happen again. Public opinion had a balancing effect. This discussion is part of that. I think the way we do things here is much better and more reasoned than the way these things are done in America or Australia. I think we have it about right.

 

 

 

Agree, we do as a whole. So give 100% free speech, let ratbags come here, say their thing then F off after a low turnout. Then there is no risk of any one in power exerting their agenda, once , or over time. Govt runs our country, but to a point

Agree to disagree. My time is too important to waste on ratbags. No reason to let them come here. They can spout off at home.

Rikkitic:

Agree to disagree. My time is too important to waste on ratbags. No reason to let them come here. They can spout off at home.

 

I simply do not understand the determination of some people to facilitate the disgorging of alt-right crypto-fascist (quasi-) racist demeaning bulllsh!t onto the community. What is your interest in this? Do you not have better things to do? How godawful important can it be to listen to someone's angry brain farts? Why is this so hugely important to you? The time I am spending on this, which I would much rather be spending elsewhere, is to oppose it, not to invite it in. Why are you so obsessively determined to invite it in? Who needs it? Go do something that matters, or at least doesn't hurt anyone, and quit worrying about the freedom of diseased minds being trampled on. There are far more important issues to worry about.

Rikkitic:

 

I simply do not understand the determination of some people to facilitate the disgorging of alt-right crypto-fascist (quasi-) racist demeaning bulllsh!t onto the community. What is your interest in this? Do you not have better things to do? How godawful important can it be to listen to someone's angry brain farts? Why is this so hugely important to you? The time I am spending on this, which I would much rather be spending elsewhere, is to oppose it, not to invite it in. Why are you so obsessively determined to invite it in? Who needs it? Go do something that matters, or at least doesn't hurt anyone, and quit worrying about the freedom of diseased minds being trampled on. There are far more important issues to worry about.

 

 

 

You are over reacting and becoming obsessive. I don't see anyone here supporting alt-right ratbags, or any ratbags. Its about free speech. Its not about you, or me, or anyone else deciding who they decree to be good bad or otherwise at any particular point in time. Its not your place to decree that, your choice is to not be going as you mentioned earlier.

Rikkitic:

 

How godawful important can it be to listen to someone's angry brain farts?

 

Personally, I like to try and understand how the lunatic fringe thinks. 

I find it's more illuminating than listening to people who think like me or one standard deviation to the left or right.   That applies to the loon-left  as much as it does to the alt-right.  I generally find nothing to agree with, but at least I can understand how they think and understand the frustration and anxieties that may be driving them.

You make a good point but we are not talking about extremists here, just people who think extremists deserve a hearing on the basis of free speech principles. This is what I am disagreeing with. It is not a bad idea to try to gain insight into why extremists cling to crazy views but I don't understand why some think democracy will die if we don't give them a public podium.

Rikkitic:

 

Agree to disagree. My time is too important to waste on ratbags. No reason to let them come here. They can spout off at home.

 

So then don't waste your time on them, right? You don't have to listen to anyone you don't like, nobody is forcing anyone to listen to anything.

One persons opinion of what constitutes hate speech can be vastly different to another persons, so many label certain individuals as part of a 'hate group' just because they are on the other side of the political spectrum.

Left or Right, let them speak, unless they are promoting or advocating violence.

They can speak all they like. Just not here. That is what the Internet is for.

This discussion has already gone around more than once. I have said what I think and so has everyone else.

MikeAqua:

 

elpenguino:

 

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?

 

 

There is specific defence at law for preventing assault.  Are there analogous defences for oath-breaking, treason etc based on the greater good ? 

 

Also, what greater good?  OK, a whole lot of info has been leaked - but what has changed in a way that can be attributed to the leak? Arguably - no good at all was achieved by Manning and we are back to treason and oath-breaking. 

 

It's very subjective and it's very easy for someone to argue they thought they were acting for the greater good - those people who vandalised the Waihopai radio domes being a classic example.

 

BTW - I don't have a wife and have never raised my hand to a woman in my entire life - not even in self defence.  It's unclear to me why you needed to use such a personalised example.

 

My apologies if this was too direct. I could have worded that better.

And now stuff reports jami-lee ross as accused to be the leaker by simon bridges. dear oh dear. Presumably this means, based on the information released up to this point by the police, that simon bridges is outing jami-lee ross as having mental health problems too. 

It does explain ross' sudden disappearance from politics.

Ross denies being the leaker so this story isn't finished yet.

For Bridges it has been one miscalculation after another - he should have let this die months ago but just wouldn't let it go.