“Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

If free speech is what we want, then is it all right if my speech would hurt a few people’s feelz? If I’m restrained from expressing my opinion, what happened to my freedom of speech?”Determining what is “hate speech” depends entirely on what values the dominant societal ideology approves of. To a “progressive” society, “Homosexuality is sinful” might be hate speech, but to a strongly religious society, “Faith in God is irrational” might be hate speech.
Even if you only defined “hate speech” to include outright slurs, that would only delay the problem, not eliminate it—because polite terms become considered as slurs when their target group gets more sensitive to them (for example, “Negro” used to be a completely neutral term for a black person, but now it’s considered a milder version of “the N-word”, and “cripple” used to be an entirely neutral term for someone without full use of his or her legs, but now it’s considered an “ableist” slur).
The point is that no matter how you phrase it, eventually any “hate speech” restriction will morph into a rule that socially unpopular views cannot be expressed—and what is “socially unpopular” might shift dramatically. A law intended to prohibit racist statements could one day be used to prosecute people for “disparaging” speech against the “obvious truth” that whites are superior. A law intended to prohibit homophobic slurs could one day be used to prosecute a gay person for “offensively and outrageously” disparaging the theology of the Baptists.
Free speech means nothing at all unless it is broad enough to encompass speech that causes offense, because speech which doesn’t cause offense doesn’t need protecting (because no one is trying to restrict it).
There is no free speech without the freedom to be controversial or offensive. If someone didn’t want to shut a speaker up there would be no need to protect the speaker’s speech.

But as Stephen Fry said:
“ It’s now very common to hear people say,
“I’m rather offended by that.” As if that gives them certain rights.
It’s actually nothing more… than a whine.
“I find that offensive.” …
It has no meaning;
it has no purpose;
it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
“I am offended by that.”
Well, so fucking what? “

“Hate speech” is free speech.

Hate speech is not that “some person is hurt by”. Today it is that is said by white straight man and disliked by somebody else who pretends to be offended. Else, it is not a hate speech. For example, if you are a Muslim and demand to behead those who offend Islam, it is not considered a hate speech in England. The laws against “hate speech” is very selective thing. In Mainstream Media perception it is believed that only people who can commit this thought crime are whites. They can’t define it, but will make you know when they see it.
The line between free speech and hate speech is drawn geographically. Free speech is American concept while hate speech is mostly European and Canadian one.
If you restrained from an expression of an opinion, your freedom of speech is lost like in EU and Canada. The most interesting thing about “hate speech” laws in Canada is that Truth is not a defence. This is most important thing you have to know about hate speech. What does it mean? That is easy. The laws against hate speech defend those who are offended by truth.

There is no practical way to implement “hate speech” laws. Everyone has a different view of what constitutes hate speech. To most, it is any speech that speaks ill of one’s own views.Mocking other people is not right. But neither is trying to make laws against the right for rude people to be rude.
If you Duckduckgo “hate speech” the first definition given is “Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” That definition seems to come from the American Bar Association. It’s the perfect definition for this question because it literally means nothing. What does it mean for speech to “offend” some one? How offended do they have to be? What does that offense need to be based on if anything? What exactly is encompassed by “other traits”? Literally any other trait? Political party, profession, neighbourhood, anything? If I mock soccer players for wearing silly shorts am I engaging in hate speech? Should I be afraid to criticise racists, abusive spouses, or corrupt politicians because I might hurt their feelings?

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all if it does not include the right to criticise an idea.

Replace Walmart with The Warehouse and you can see the future here.

Walmart is adding hundreds of robots to its stores to help wash floors and perform low-level jobs that will free up workers to do other important work.

Walmart will add robots to at least 300 of its stores this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. In another 900 of its stores, Walmart will put 16-foot-high towers permitting shoppers to pick up orders they’ve placed online

“With automation, we are able to take away some of the tasks that associates don’t enjoy doing,” Walmart’s senior director of central operations in the U.S., Mark Propes, said, according to the WSJ. “At the same time we continue to open up new jobs in other things in the store,” he added.The robots’ duties are to clean floors, monitor inventory and unload trucks, among others, the WSJ reported. Walmart’s robot launch comes after the company has increasingly spent more money to give workers higher salaries and offer online grocery shopping and delivery services. The robots are meant to help offset those costs, according to the WSJ.

The robots are intended to be “operational partner[s]” to workers, according to Brain Corp. innovation vice president Phil Duffy, the WSJ reported. Brain Corp. developed the software that allows the robots to function. Walmart will also double the number of automated conveyer belts that scan products leaving delivery trucks to 1,200, the WSJ reported. The move is meant to offset costs and free workers to do higher-value tasks, according to Walmart officials.

“It’s very hard for employers to get the workforce they need,” Mr. Duffy said. “None of the customers we’re working with are using our machines to reduce their labor costs; they’re using them to allow their teams, their janitorial teams, to perform higher-value tasks.”

Walmart raised the base salary for its workers to $11 in 2018. Its competitors have also raised wages. Costco increased worker wages to $15 and Amazon did the same.

Other retail corporations have also added automated devices to its stores. Target added money counting machines to its stores over the summer to free up workers to perform other more meaningful duties.

Walmart’s robot launch comes as it continues to fight Amazon in an online shopping battle. Walmart recently hired 40,000 workers to help stock groceries for online orders, the WSJ reported.

The Messiah Who Lied

Obama ran under the empty platitude, “Yes we can!”

Obama is now proven yet again to be another leftie liar. He was only following orders from his puppet masters. He certainly wasn’t going to end wars and government corruption. Instead, he expanded them.

The corporate media has repeatedly said Obama’s administration was ‘scandal free,’ but in reality it was chock-full of scandals including the IRS targeting the Tea Party scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the GSA scandal, the EPA scandal, sending Iran billions of dollars in the middle of the night, his prosecution of whistle blowers, the Solyndra scandal, and many more. His media covered for him by downplaying or ignoring his scandals at every turn.

Where have I heard that complaint before?

Oh I remember now. Our very own Media have been ignoring and covering up the constant lying from our very own COL.

Are the cops telling the public one thing and doing another?

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/rsa-and-police-in-standoff-over-responsible-cancelled-anzac-day-events

What are we not being told? If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then the cops have given in and the loser who caused the dreadful deaths and injury in Christchurch has won.

One has to ask, who is directing our police to take such actions. Surely they wouldn’t be doing this off their own back. Are they acting on orders from our politicians?

If it is a lack of police on the ground, I am sure they can find plenty of police busy gathering fines off the driving public, who would fill the breach at such an important ceremony as ANZAC day.

‘You’re next’ – Armagh teen charged with making death threats to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Donal McMahon

April 12 2019 5:20 PM

AN ARMAGH teenager has been charged with making social media death threats to the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Matthew Burns (19), of Dundalk Road, Newtownhamilton, wearing a blue shirt and glasses appeared before Newry Magistrates Court on Friday.

A PSNI detective Constable from the crime cyber unit  said he could connect the accused to the charges.

The accused’s parents and sister attended the court.

As the charges were read out, Mr Burns’ mother held her hand to her head and closed her eyes.

Ms Ardern recently touched the hearts of the New Zealand people when speaking out after a mass shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.

 A Twitter message to the prime minster was said to have been made directly after the terrorist attack.

The court heard that a photo of a gun silencer was sent with the message: “You’re next”.

The defendant was further charged with making similar threats to the Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn.

The accused was arrested on Thursday and taken to Banbridge PSNI station for questioning.

Two dates of offending are said to have taken place on Twitter and Facebook in December 2018 and March 20, 2019.

During interview Mr Burns stated he had far-right political leanings and had negative sentiments towards minorities, Muslims and the LGBTQ community.

Volumes of similar posts towards minorities were said to be under investigation by the PSNI cyber unit.

An application was made to restrict reporting due to the defendant’s believed poor mental health and attempts at self harm indicating a suicidal nature.

District judge McGarrity rejected the application due to a lack of medical evidence before the courts.

The defendant was released on £500 bail to his parents custody with a £1000 cash surety with the condition that he has no internet connection and adheres to a curfew.

 The magistrate warned Mr Burns: “The police are going to be watching you…next time the courts may not be so sympathetic as today.” 

The case was adjourned to May 8.

Another nutter from overseas meddling in our peaceful country…..