planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:04 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7486
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

F1 is not there to judge on human rights or any other political/social issue.

Do you boycott every product from China? A quarter of Europe is served by Russian gas and pretty much the rest of the world from Chinese electronics. I bet half the equipment in your pc/phone at the moment are from there. If you want to make a statement then stop using these products; but F1 to boycott GPs while using Chinese products is two-faced to say the least.

Take Williams for example, they are using Chinese wheels the last few years (they may still do), from a Chinese company called Citic-Dicastal. Should they take part in a Chinese GP boycott while still using their products?

This does not mean that I condone what is happening in these countries, nor that people should turn a blind eye. But I do not like a half-arsed solution, political or social statements taking advantage F1's popularity. We have seen how this can go wrong, Turkey tried to do that in that GP podium.


The problem is these countries are being financially rewarded by events being held within their borders. I simply find that morally abhorrent.

And yes, I try and, wherever possible, avoid buying products made in China - it is exceptionally difficult though, since 99% of items for sale are made in China these days. I try and by Australian made, wherever possible.

With your views, how are these countries punished? Or, do we cast a blind eye and let them continue to commit human atrocities and right violations because it's too hard or too inconvenient to deal with on a global basis?

The UN is a joke as long as there is the security council and the right to veto vote.

I hold little hope for the human species, but perhaps it is for the best that we wipe each other out. I'm sure the rest of the planet's species won't miss us and will be happy to see our backsides!

I did say above that I do not condone what is happening to these countries. But I'm a bit confused now, are you asking me to solve these issues?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
dpastern wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

I don't really understand what you're saying here? What's money got to do with this particular case?


My bad for not being more specific.

Some comments prior to mine were of the opinion that sport shouldn't become involved in politics (in general). My comment was more in response to the Bahrain issues, and F1's lack of acknowledgement or response. Bahrain, after all, is a very wealthy country. I am of the firm belief, that sport, as a social event, has act on social responsibility to political and humane issues.

Let's consider China's appalling human rights issues (yet, there's still a Chinese GP, go figure), Russia's appalling human rights issues (again, there's a Russian GP). If the FIA had any balls, they'd boycott GP venues that have shown ongoing human rights violations. But hey, the FIA, and F1 is all about $$$$$$. Being American owned now, this is even more evident (America has a sordid history of supporting human rights violations over the years, and even currently, as an example, its ongoing support of Israel's illegal occupation of sovereign Palestinian territory).

Unfortunately, modern society has gravitated towards a stick your head in the sand approach to humane issues. As an example of this, the US' investment in manufacturing in China.

note: Both China, and Russia are signatories to the UN's charter on the declaration of human rights.


They did skip Bahrain.

I think the problem is still the same though. If you start boycotting some countries you have to draw a line of what human riots violations are severe enough. By doing that it looks like you condone anything that may be bad but perhaps not bad enough to warrant a boycott. There are a bad things happening in most countries around the world.

Should Spain have been boycotted a few years ago after their violent reaction to the Basque independence vote for example?


When did they skip Bahrain? As far as I know, it's still on the calendar, and hasn't been skipped for human rights violations.

As to Spain, yes, in my eyes, in a perfect world, that would also qualify.

Sadly, $$$$$ more important than doing the morally right thing.


Boycott the US for the state killing of young black men? I'm trying to find where your line is here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Boycott the US for the state killing of young black men? I'm trying to find where your line is here.

I'd say boycotts should be reserved for state sponsored races. If the deal is directly with the government and it's paid for by the government to give exposure and image to said government, then boycotting the race is a reasonable response to human rights violations (of which, yes, the USA is guilty) committed by said government. The Austin GP, however - while subsidized on a state level by the state of Texas - is a race that was organized by a private promoter, and wasn't set up for the purpose of making the US government look good. I wouldn't consider it in the same category as Bahrain or Baku, races that were agreed upon with and funded solely by the governments of those countries.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:45 am
Posts: 100
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yep, we can agree to disagree. Why does it have a social obligation to politics? And why only F1? Do you see that in any other shows that gain TV exposure? Do they do a minute's silence on every program televised? Are you outraged that they didn't hold a minute's silence in Britain's got Talent? Do you see where I'm going with this?

And Apartheid was a little bit different. I am up for boycotting things like that, places that there is actual danger for the drivers and personnel, let alone the wider social and political meaning. But F1 is not a political debate, it is a sport.


I never said only F1, don't put words in my mouth please. This is a F1 specific forum, hence assuming posters would put 2 and 2 together and realise what applies to F1 should apply to other sports.

Britain's got talent ain't a sport, so a very poor analogy on your part, but I do get your point. Where do you draw the line? Major sports events. We all know what they are and how they differ from minor sporting events.

Try and be a member of the F1 entourage and be openly gay in Bahrain, Russia, China or Abu Dhabi and see what happens. You'll end up bashed and then in jail (if not outright murdered). Try and be a woman and being able to wear what you want openly in any of the middle eastern countries.

PS South Africa is still a nightmare hellhole - my source, several people who used to live there and have fled the country. It is the most dangerous country in the world (even more dangerous than Mexico).


I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was making a general point, thankfully you got it in your next sentence.

Where to draw the line is the gist of it. That's what Mikey123 was alluding to, that you can't do it for one and not for the others. There should be a line and the line should be easy to draw in a sport; just do not get involved at all.

I agree about these issues existing in the countries you mentioned. I just do not think that F1 should be the one solving all these issues


No, it shouldn't just be F1,it should be all sports. Remember when Hamilton wanted to take the knee at the US GP? F1 in no uncertain terms told him that he couldn't. This shouldn't be allowed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yep, we can agree to disagree. Why does it have a social obligation to politics? And why only F1? Do you see that in any other shows that gain TV exposure? Do they do a minute's silence on every program televised? Are you outraged that they didn't hold a minute's silence in Britain's got Talent? Do you see where I'm going with this?

And Apartheid was a little bit different. I am up for boycotting things like that, places that there is actual danger for the drivers and personnel, let alone the wider social and political meaning. But F1 is not a political debate, it is a sport.


I never said only F1, don't put words in my mouth please. This is a F1 specific forum, hence assuming posters would put 2 and 2 together and realise what applies to F1 should apply to other sports.

Britain's got talent ain't a sport, so a very poor analogy on your part, but I do get your point. Where do you draw the line? Major sports events. We all know what they are and how they differ from minor sporting events.

Try and be a member of the F1 entourage and be openly gay in Bahrain, Russia, China or Abu Dhabi and see what happens. You'll end up bashed and then in jail (if not outright murdered). Try and be a woman and being able to wear what you want openly in any of the middle eastern countries.

PS South Africa is still a nightmare hellhole - my source, several people who used to live there and have fled the country. It is the most dangerous country in the world (even more dangerous than Mexico).


I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was making a general point, thankfully you got it in your next sentence.

Where to draw the line is the gist of it. That's what Mikey123 was alluding to, that you can't do it for one and not for the others. There should be a line and the line should be easy to draw in a sport; just do not get involved at all.

I agree about these issues existing in the countries you mentioned. I just do not think that F1 should be the one solving all these issues


No, it shouldn't just be F1,it should be all sports. Remember when Hamilton wanted to take the knee at the US GP? F1 in no uncertain terms told him that he couldn't. This shouldn't be allowed.


Did Hamilton ever say he wanted to take a knee?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1862
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yep, we can agree to disagree. Why does it have a social obligation to politics? And why only F1? Do you see that in any other shows that gain TV exposure? Do they do a minute's silence on every program televised? Are you outraged that they didn't hold a minute's silence in Britain's got Talent? Do you see where I'm going with this?

And Apartheid was a little bit different. I am up for boycotting things like that, places that there is actual danger for the drivers and personnel, let alone the wider social and political meaning. But F1 is not a political debate, it is a sport.


I never said only F1, don't put words in my mouth please. This is a F1 specific forum, hence assuming posters would put 2 and 2 together and realise what applies to F1 should apply to other sports.

Britain's got talent ain't a sport, so a very poor analogy on your part, but I do get your point. Where do you draw the line? Major sports events. We all know what they are and how they differ from minor sporting events.

Try and be a member of the F1 entourage and be openly gay in Bahrain, Russia, China or Abu Dhabi and see what happens. You'll end up bashed and then in jail (if not outright murdered). Try and be a woman and being able to wear what you want openly in any of the middle eastern countries.

PS South Africa is still a nightmare hellhole - my source, several people who used to live there and have fled the country. It is the most dangerous country in the world (even more dangerous than Mexico).


I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was making a general point, thankfully you got it in your next sentence.

Where to draw the line is the gist of it. That's what Mikey123 was alluding to, that you can't do it for one and not for the others. There should be a line and the line should be easy to draw in a sport; just do not get involved at all.

I agree about these issues existing in the countries you mentioned. I just do not think that F1 should be the one solving all these issues


No, it shouldn't just be F1,it should be all sports. Remember when Hamilton wanted to take the knee at the US GP? F1 in no uncertain terms told him that he couldn't. This shouldn't be allowed.


Did Hamilton ever say he wanted to take a knee?

Apparently he thought about it.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... l-protests

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7486
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yep, we can agree to disagree. Why does it have a social obligation to politics? And why only F1? Do you see that in any other shows that gain TV exposure? Do they do a minute's silence on every program televised? Are you outraged that they didn't hold a minute's silence in Britain's got Talent? Do you see where I'm going with this?

And Apartheid was a little bit different. I am up for boycotting things like that, places that there is actual danger for the drivers and personnel, let alone the wider social and political meaning. But F1 is not a political debate, it is a sport.


I never said only F1, don't put words in my mouth please. This is a F1 specific forum, hence assuming posters would put 2 and 2 together and realise what applies to F1 should apply to other sports.

Britain's got talent ain't a sport, so a very poor analogy on your part, but I do get your point. Where do you draw the line? Major sports events. We all know what they are and how they differ from minor sporting events.

Try and be a member of the F1 entourage and be openly gay in Bahrain, Russia, China or Abu Dhabi and see what happens. You'll end up bashed and then in jail (if not outright murdered). Try and be a woman and being able to wear what you want openly in any of the middle eastern countries.

PS South Africa is still a nightmare hellhole - my source, several people who used to live there and have fled the country. It is the most dangerous country in the world (even more dangerous than Mexico).


I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was making a general point, thankfully you got it in your next sentence.

Where to draw the line is the gist of it. That's what Mikey123 was alluding to, that you can't do it for one and not for the others. There should be a line and the line should be easy to draw in a sport; just do not get involved at all.

I agree about these issues existing in the countries you mentioned. I just do not think that F1 should be the one solving all these issues


No, it shouldn't just be F1,it should be all sports. Remember when Hamilton wanted to take the knee at the US GP? F1 in no uncertain terms told him that he couldn't. This shouldn't be allowed.


That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1776
Location: Canada
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yep, we can agree to disagree. Why does it have a social obligation to politics? And why only F1? Do you see that in any other shows that gain TV exposure? Do they do a minute's silence on every program televised? Are you outraged that they didn't hold a minute's silence in Britain's got Talent? Do you see where I'm going with this?

And Apartheid was a little bit different. I am up for boycotting things like that, places that there is actual danger for the drivers and personnel, let alone the wider social and political meaning. But F1 is not a political debate, it is a sport.


I never said only F1, don't put words in my mouth please. This is a F1 specific forum, hence assuming posters would put 2 and 2 together and realise what applies to F1 should apply to other sports.

Britain's got talent ain't a sport, so a very poor analogy on your part, but I do get your point. Where do you draw the line? Major sports events. We all know what they are and how they differ from minor sporting events.

Try and be a member of the F1 entourage and be openly gay in Bahrain, Russia, China or Abu Dhabi and see what happens. You'll end up bashed and then in jail (if not outright murdered). Try and be a woman and being able to wear what you want openly in any of the middle eastern countries.

PS South Africa is still a nightmare hellhole - my source, several people who used to live there and have fled the country. It is the most dangerous country in the world (even more dangerous than Mexico).


I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was making a general point, thankfully you got it in your next sentence.

Where to draw the line is the gist of it. That's what Mikey123 was alluding to, that you can't do it for one and not for the others. There should be a line and the line should be easy to draw in a sport; just do not get involved at all.

I agree about these issues existing in the countries you mentioned. I just do not think that F1 should be the one solving all these issues


No, it shouldn't just be F1,it should be all sports. Remember when Hamilton wanted to take the knee at the US GP? F1 in no uncertain terms told him that he couldn't. This shouldn't be allowed.


That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion

100%


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Miami, Florida
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
It's not about sports staying out of politics so much so as it's people have grown stupider over time and the tree hugging social police are always on the beat, just L@@KING for the most insignificant of things to harp on and get as many other nutjobs on their lynch mob bandwagon!!!

What's worse are companies giving into these cyber bullies and adhering to their wishes and even backing some of the idiocy, and you end up with people losing their jobs over literally nothing. Sadly CEO's and lead organizations are now comprised of some of these powder puffs and they appease these nitwits, giving them power when they literally should have none.

See, this is why it's best to stay out of politics. If you'd never posted this, my respect for you would never have gone through the floor, and the forum would be just that little bit more friendly as a result.

If that’s how you feel you’re just part of this problem that’s spiraling out of control.

It’s one thing to be sensitive to things, it’s another to give credence to people who have nothing better to do than stir things up when the thing they’re getting their underarm up in a wad over was likely an ant hill.

So many people have been made out to be something they’re clearly not simply because someone looking for something to pick at, said something publicly and others whom likely would’ve never noticed said yeah! You’re right and it becomes something it was never meant to be. The fact that people don’t realize that is a big part of the problem.

FYI… Last I checked you’re no one to me or in my life so I don’t need your respect in any capacity, nor does anyone else. I merely answered the question of this topic honestly so if you don’t like it, touch cow pies to you.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Miami, Florida
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I hope not but there probably will be.


Out of interest, why is that?


Because very sadly attacks like this are not that rare globally - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... March_2019

If you memorialise this one you have to memorialise all of them. Otherwise you open your self up to criticism where the sport will get labled hypocritical and best and racist at worse.

Ridiculous criticisms like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47605542

Absolutely agreed.

I'd like F1 to stay out of politics or current affairs (as much as possible obviously). We've had it before, people trying to use F1 for any reasons, from the Turkish GP podium fiasco to the Bahrain protests.

It's a sport, let it be a sport.


Sorry, I disagree. It has a social obligation to set a good example. Remember when sports globally banned South Africa due to apartheid?

It now seems that $$$$$$$ are more important that standing up for what is right. It's a very American attitude that is sadly spreading like a virus throughout the rest of the world's civilised nations.

Sorry but sport DOES NOT have a social obligation to do anything but carry out its business in the best way possible to represent itself in the best possible manor. Nothing more, nothing less. That athletes have used their fame and status as a platform from which to advocate for things is a different animal altogether and that’s where people have crossed their wires on the subject.

The NFL kneeling issue is that the NFL is right to want to stay out of politics that it has no power over, but they are wrong for first, not allowing players to take a knee in protest, and second, they, along with countless others have focused so vehemently on the nonsensical notion that its disrespecting the Flag, that the lost sight of the actual thing players are protesting, which is POLICE BRUTALITY, particularly against black men. As Americans, they have the right to voice their opinion and with the NFL being the biggest, and most watched sport in this country, what better vessel is there to raise awareness?

And this again speaks to my statements above… half the people didn’t even know what the kneeling was about, but some only heard the disrespect of the flag, and joined the crusade to end the disrespect, never taking the time to find out what the kneeling is actually about. If they had, and they are truly compassionate people who care about their fellow man, I don’t see how anyone wouldn’t be in support of players kneeling for the anthem.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:45 am
Posts: 100
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 452
Covalent wrote:
I think Charlie is who they'll pay their respects to.

Didn't they give Charlie a 'minute of silence' at Australia?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9622
mmi16 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
I think Charlie is who they'll pay their respects to.

Didn't they give Charlie a 'minute of silence' at Australia?

I don't know TBH, I just barely was in time to see the lights go out.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7486
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:45 am
Posts: 100
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Far side of Koozebane
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.


So what if a player wants to hold a sign up during the national anthem decrying same sex marriage, or supporting the 2nd amendment just after a massacre, or supporting Trump's border wall? Is that ok too? How would team owners or the NFL react if a player held up a klan flag. Should that be acceptable?

Of course an employer or a sport should have the ability to govern an employees rights if, in enacting those rights, the employee risks, in an way, shape or form, either by design or coincidence, associating the organisation they represent with the cause they're championing.

Sports people should be able to say anything they want but only on their own time. While they're on company time, you follow company procedures & protocols.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Britain- 19) - 128 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 330 trophies available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.


And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's fair enough and it's how it should be in my opinion


Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.

And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
So then who arbitrates what is acceptable and what isn't if we aren't using the perimeters of the law? Obviously you find one reasonable and the other not but there will be plenty of people who think the opposite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:45 am
Posts: 100
Exediron wrote:
This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


Exactly.

As to someone mentioning the "Klan" they should have long been made illegal, and rounded up and thrown in jail with the keys "lost". Only in that gutter of the world, America, do groups like the Klan enjoy unfettered freedom of speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
dpastern wrote:
Exediron wrote:
This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


Exactly.

As to someone mentioning the "Klan" they should have long been made illegal, and rounded up and thrown in jail with the keys "lost". Only in that gutter of the world, America, do groups like the Klan enjoy unfettered freedom of speech.


But it's not illegal (I didn't actually know that but i'll take your word for it). So who decides what is and isn't acceptable topics for individuals to protest on within a sporting environment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.

And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


But that's the problem Exed. Not everyone has the same political & social views so everyone's views on what constitutes hate speech will be different. If i'm a Muslim sports star & I don't support homosexuality or same sex marriage, & I publicly indicate that, does that make me homophobic & thus guilty of hate speech? If so, then what happens to those who criticise my religious beliefs? Does that make them Islamophobic & thus also guilty of hate speech? Then are those who criticise the islamaphobes guilty of hate speech?

Is stating a political or social point of view, no matter how misguided it may be, really hate speech? If so, everyone's guilty of hate speech to someone almost every day.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Britain- 19) - 128 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 330 trophies available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Last edited by Jezza13 on Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7839
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Not sure which part of my comment you agreed to (whether it should be 100% of all sports, or F1 telling Hamilton he couldn't take the knee).

Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.

And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.

Mikey picked an obvious antithesis to demonstrate the point but theres plenty in between.

Problem is who do you trust to be in control of what is OK to say and what isnt? Lets say someone is in control of that who agrees with you, allows the knee taking but doesn't allow the anti gay sign, all is presumably good in your opinion. Then what if that person is replaced by someone with completely opposite views and decides that taking the knee is disrespectful to police officers so it's no longer allowed, but trying to save people from hell for telling them being gay is a sin is fine so that's allowed.

IMO It's easy to overlook the dangers of giving someone the power to decide what is and isn't OK to be said when you look at it from the perspective of the things you would consider to be hateful being banned, but it's always worth to considering what happens after this power has been established and then someone who doesn't think the same way comes to be in control of it.

Edit: sorry didn't mean to pile on, Mikey and Jezza hadn't replied when I started writing it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:45 am
Posts: 100
mikeyg123 wrote:
But it's not illegal (I didn't actually know that but i'll take your word for it). So who decides what is and isn't acceptable topics for individuals to protest on within a sporting environment?


It's not illegal because the US' "freedom of speech" laws are BROKEN. If you're using freedom of speech to spread racial hatred, or homophobia, or religious hatred, then you surrender the right to freedom of speech imho. That is not what a responsible society should be encouraging, or empowering.

America does a great deal of things wrong.

Massacre via gun in NZ, semi auto guns etc banned in under 5 days.

Massacre in the US? *inaudible* sweet SFA done, even years later. The NRA even more powerful, because it bribes, oops, I mean donates funds to senators in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez touches on this in her amazing speech in congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs

witness scared male politicians publicly attacking her, Fox news attacking her (the lackeys of the Republicans). Her and Jacinda Arden put every other male politician on the planet to shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
dpastern wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
But it's not illegal (I didn't actually know that but i'll take your word for it). So who decides what is and isn't acceptable topics for individuals to protest on within a sporting environment?


It's not illegal because the US' "freedom of speech" laws are BROKEN. If you're using freedom of speech to spread racial hatred, or homophobia, or religious hatred, then you surrender the right to freedom of speech imho. That is not what a responsible society should be encouraging, or empowering.

America does a great deal of things wrong.

Massacre via gun in NZ, semi auto guns etc banned in under 5 days.

Massacre in the US? *inaudible* sweet SFA done, even years later. The NRA even more powerful, because it bribes, oops, I mean donates funds to senators in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez touches on this in her amazing speech in congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs

witness scared male politicians publicly attacking her, Fox news attacking her (the lackeys of the Republicans). Her and Jacinda Arden put every other male politician on the planet to shame.


Interesting Info but does not really address my pertinent point which is thus - if not the law then who has the right to decide what can or cannot be protested about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Mikey picked an obvious antithesis to demonstrate the point but theres plenty in between.

Problem is who do you trust to be in control of what is OK to say and what isnt? Lets say someone is in control of that who agrees with you, allows the knee taking but doesn't allow the anti gay sign, all is presumably good in your opinion. Then what if that person is replaced by someone with completely opposite views and decides that taking the knee is disrespectful to police officers so it's no longer allowed, but trying to save people from hell for telling them being gay is a sin is fine so that's allowed.

IMO It's easy to overlook the dangers of giving someone the power to decide what is and isn't OK to be said when you look at it from the perspective of the things you would consider to be hateful being banned, but it's always worth to considering what happens after this power has been established and then someone who doesn't think the same way comes to be in control of it.

Edit: sorry didn't mean to pile on, Mikey and Jezza hadn't replied when I started writing it out.


No problem, I think you explain it perfectly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Far side of Koozebane
dpastern wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
But it's not illegal (I didn't actually know that but i'll take your word for it). So who decides what is and isn't acceptable topics for individuals to protest on within a sporting environment?


It's not illegal because the US' "freedom of speech" laws are BROKEN. If you're using freedom of speech to spread racial hatred, or homophobia, or religious hatred, then you surrender the right to freedom of speech imho. That is not what a responsible society should be encouraging, or empowering.

America does a great deal of things wrong.

Massacre via gun in NZ, semi auto guns etc banned in under 5 days.

Massacre in the US? *inaudible* sweet SFA done, even years later. The NRA even more powerful, because it bribes, oops, I mean donates funds to senators in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez touches on this in her amazing speech in congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs

witness scared male politicians publicly attacking her, Fox news attacking her (the lackeys of the Republicans). Her and Jacinda Arden put every other male politician on the planet to shame.


So what about sexually discriminative speech dpastern? Is that hate speech too or, like most things on this issue, does it depend on what side of the political & social net you’re standing?

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Britain- 19) - 128 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 330 trophies available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Jezza13 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Telling Hamilton not to take the knee. And in a way that all sports should have a common thinking; as in not to mix politics with sports.


See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.

And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


But that's the problem Exed. Not everyone has the same political & social views so everyone's views on what constitutes hate speech will be different. If i'm a Muslim sports star & I don't support homosexuality or same sex marriage, & I publicly indicate that, does that make me homophobic & thus guilty of hate speech? If so, then what happens to those who criticise my religious beliefs? Does that make them Islamophobic & thus also guilty of hate speech? Then are those who criticise the islamaphobes guilty of hate speech?

Is stating a political or social point of view, no matter how misguided it may be, really hate speech? If so, everyone's guilty of hate speech to someone almost every day.

some pretty interesting points here, well said.

The definition of hate speech seems to fluctuate wildly depending on who is dong the defining. It's a dangerous path to tread and is often in conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
dpastern wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
But it's not illegal (I didn't actually know that but i'll take your word for it). So who decides what is and isn't acceptable topics for individuals to protest on within a sporting environment?


It's not illegal because the US' "freedom of speech" laws are BROKEN. If you're using freedom of speech to spread racial hatred, or homophobia, or religious hatred, then you surrender the right to freedom of speech imho. That is not what a responsible society should be encouraging, or empowering.

America does a great deal of things wrong.

Massacre via gun in NZ, semi auto guns etc banned in under 5 days.

Massacre in the US? *inaudible* sweet SFA done, even years later. The NRA even more powerful, because it bribes, oops, I mean donates funds to senators in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez touches on this in her amazing speech in congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs

witness scared male politicians publicly attacking her, Fox news attacking her (the lackeys of the Republicans). Her and Jacinda Arden put every other male politician on the planet to shame.

Good example here of (doubtless unintended) hypocrisy. Her sex, and those of anyone attacking her, should be irrelevant to the conversation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:14 am
Posts: 177
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire UK
Zoue wrote:
some pretty interesting points here, well said.

The definition of hate speech seems to fluctuate wildly depending on who is dong the defining. It's a dangerous path to tread and is often in conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.
BIB - I wonder if this has something to do with how, these days, ANYONE that disagrees with someone is labelled a "hater", when they're clearly not?

I could give my opinion of an F1 driver, stating that I think they are rubbish and have a dreadful attitude. In today's world that would label me a "hater" by many. Which I am not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dpastern wrote:

See, this is where I disagree. A spot, or employer, should not be able to remove an individual's rights. EVER.

And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


But that's the problem Exed. Not everyone has the same political & social views so everyone's views on what constitutes hate speech will be different. If i'm a Muslim sports star & I don't support homosexuality or same sex marriage, & I publicly indicate that, does that make me homophobic & thus guilty of hate speech? If so, then what happens to those who criticise my religious beliefs? Does that make them Islamophobic & thus also guilty of hate speech? Then are those who criticise the islamaphobes guilty of hate speech?

Is stating a political or social point of view, no matter how misguided it may be, really hate speech? If so, everyone's guilty of hate speech to someone almost every day.

some pretty interesting points here, well said.

The definition of hate speech seems to fluctuate wildly depending on who is dong the defining. It's a dangerous path to tread and is often in conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.


But even with the BIB that's a dangerous path to tread.

For instance, I may say that IMO all those who believe in Scientology are irrational & gullible fools. Am I really now guilty of hate speech & thus deserved of prosecution?

To me, hate speech is any speech that actively & directly promotes, instructs or expresses a desire towards, the physical or psychological harm by one person or a group of persons against another person or group of persons.

Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Britain- 19) - 128 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 330 trophies available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
And if Hamilton wanted to hold up a banner stating that homosexuality was a sin then F1 should just be ok with that?

This strikes me as a bit of a false equivalence. Raising awareness of police brutality is not the same thing as using a sport as a platform to spread hate. You don't have to treat all types of speech the same.


But that's the problem Exed. Not everyone has the same political & social views so everyone's views on what constitutes hate speech will be different. If i'm a Muslim sports star & I don't support homosexuality or same sex marriage, & I publicly indicate that, does that make me homophobic & thus guilty of hate speech? If so, then what happens to those who criticise my religious beliefs? Does that make them Islamophobic & thus also guilty of hate speech? Then are those who criticise the islamaphobes guilty of hate speech?

Is stating a political or social point of view, no matter how misguided it may be, really hate speech? If so, everyone's guilty of hate speech to someone almost every day.

some pretty interesting points here, well said.

The definition of hate speech seems to fluctuate wildly depending on who is dong the defining. It's a dangerous path to tread and is often in conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.


But even with the BIB that's a dangerous path to tread.

For instance, I may say that IMO all those who believe in Scientology are irrational & gullible fools. Am I really now guilty of hate speech & thus deserved of prosecution?

To me, hate speech is any speech that actively & directly promotes, instructs or expresses a desire towards, the physical or psychological harm by one person or a group of persons against another person or group of persons.

Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

yes, I'd agree. I hadn't really considered from every angle but I think you've captured it pretty well here.

The broader point is that sadly personal critique is often labelled as hate speech and any dissent gets lost in the hyperbole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
Jezza13 wrote:
Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

What about when an environment exists in which you know that expressing said opinion will embolden people to commit an actual hate crime? If a prominent public figure says they think X minority are all rapists and murderers, that may not be hate speech - but it will certainly be taken by certain groups as an invitation to take action.

Obviously, it is a complex issue. Every issue involving people is complex, and the more people the more complex. But there has to be a better answer in between 'you can say anything and absolve yourself of any responsibility for the results' and 'you can't say anything'. And someone needs to draw that line, whether it's by strictly adhering to the laws of a country, or by drawing up consistent rules that the sporting organization in question follows.

Bottom line for me: when you're dealing with people who can influence a massive body of the public by their mere words, it's not just freedom of individual expression anymore.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

What about when an environment exists in which you know that expressing said opinion will embolden people to commit an actual hate crime? If a prominent public figure says they think X minority are all rapists and murderers, that may not be hate speech - but it will certainly be taken by certain groups as an invitation to take action.

Obviously, it is a complex issue. Every issue involving people is complex, and the more people the more complex. But there has to be a better answer in between 'you can say anything and absolve yourself of any responsibility for the results' and 'you can't say anything'. And someone needs to draw that line, whether it's by strictly adhering to the laws of a country, or by drawing up consistent rules that the sporting organization in question follows.

Bottom line for me: when you're dealing with people who can influence a massive body of the public by their mere words, it's not just freedom of individual expression anymore.


But again, who gets to draw that line? I think the point people are making is that it's all good as long as the person who draws the line agrees with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

What about when an environment exists in which you know that expressing said opinion will embolden people to commit an actual hate crime? If a prominent public figure says they think X minority are all rapists and murderers, that may not be hate speech - but it will certainly be taken by certain groups as an invitation to take action.

Obviously, it is a complex issue. Every issue involving people is complex, and the more people the more complex. But there has to be a better answer in between 'you can say anything and absolve yourself of any responsibility for the results' and 'you can't say anything'. And someone needs to draw that line, whether it's by strictly adhering to the laws of a country, or by drawing up consistent rules that the sporting organization in question follows.

Bottom line for me: when you're dealing with people who can influence a massive body of the public by their mere words, it's not just freedom of individual expression anymore.

But again, who gets to draw that line? I think the point people are making is that it's all good as long as the person who draws the line agrees with you.

I don't see that as being such a big problem as you seem to. Who gets to draw the line is either the law of the country involved, international law, or the law of the sporting body. All of these things get to draw lines all over the place already, so why not this one?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

What about when an environment exists in which you know that expressing said opinion will embolden people to commit an actual hate crime? If a prominent public figure says they think X minority are all rapists and murderers, that may not be hate speech - but it will certainly be taken by certain groups as an invitation to take action.

Obviously, it is a complex issue. Every issue involving people is complex, and the more people the more complex. But there has to be a better answer in between 'you can say anything and absolve yourself of any responsibility for the results' and 'you can't say anything'. And someone needs to draw that line, whether it's by strictly adhering to the laws of a country, or by drawing up consistent rules that the sporting organization in question follows.

Bottom line for me: when you're dealing with people who can influence a massive body of the public by their mere words, it's not just freedom of individual expression anymore.

But again, who gets to draw that line? I think the point people are making is that it's all good as long as the person who draws the line agrees with you.

I don't see that as being such a big problem as you seem to. Who gets to draw the line is either the law of the country involved, international law, or the law of the sporting body. All of these things get to draw lines all over the place already, so why not this one?


Law of the country is fine but you seem opposed to that?

The law of the sporting body still needs someone to morally arbitrate and declare what causes you can or cannot protest on.

I'll quote black flag because he summed it up perfectly -

"Problem is who do you trust to be in control of what is OK to say and what isnt? Lets say someone is in control of that who agrees with you, allows the knee taking but doesn't allow the anti gay sign, all is presumably good in your opinion. Then what if that person is replaced by someone with completely opposite views and decides that taking the knee is disrespectful to police officers so it's no longer allowed, but trying to save people from hell for telling them being gay is a sin is fine so that's allowed.

IMO It's easy to overlook the dangers of giving someone the power to decide what is and isn't OK to be said when you look at it from the perspective of the things you would consider to be hateful being banned, but it's always worth to considering what happens after this power has been established and then someone who doesn't think the same way comes to be in control of it."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1816
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Simply expressing a personal critique on political, social, religious or any other subject should never be defined as hate speech, no matter how moronic or ridiculous that critique may be.

What about when an environment exists in which you know that expressing said opinion will embolden people to commit an actual hate crime? If a prominent public figure says they think X minority are all rapists and murderers, that may not be hate speech - but it will certainly be taken by certain groups as an invitation to take action.

Obviously, it is a complex issue. Every issue involving people is complex, and the more people the more complex. But there has to be a better answer in between 'you can say anything and absolve yourself of any responsibility for the results' and 'you can't say anything'. And someone needs to draw that line, whether it's by strictly adhering to the laws of a country, or by drawing up consistent rules that the sporting organization in question follows.

Bottom line for me: when you're dealing with people who can influence a massive body of the public by their mere words, it's not just freedom of individual expression anymore.


Again though Exed, where is the line drawn? If it's not ok to say that X minority are rapists or murders, is it ok to say that members of x majority are all rape enablers or should hate speech laws apply only when so called members of the majority are commenting on minorities?

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/author-claims-that-all-men-are-unsafe-enablers-of-rape-culture-even-her-own-sons/

I'd reckon there'd be protests in the streets if this author was hauled off to face hate speech charges. I don't think the 1st amendment would be sitting on the shelf for too long in that situation.

One good thing out of that last paragraph I suppose is that the world won't have to put up with the myriad of political commentators or late night talk show hosts anymore because they fall into that category, as do comedians, any number of rap artists, political & religious leaders, university lecturers, political activists & authors.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Britain- 19) - 128 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 330 trophies available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
Jezza13 wrote:
Again though Exed, where is the line drawn? If it's not ok to say that X minority are rapists or murders, is it ok to say that members of x majority are all rape enablers or should hate speech laws apply only when so called members of the majority are commenting on minorities?

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/author-claims-that-all-men-are-unsafe-enablers-of-rape-culture-even-her-own-sons/

I'd reckon there'd be protests in the streets if this author was hauled off to face hate speech charges. I don't think the 1st amendment would be sitting on the shelf for too long in that situation.

One good thing out of that last paragraph I suppose is that the world won't have to put up with the myriad of political commentators or late night talk show hosts anymore because they fall into that category, as do comedians, any number of rap artists, political & religious leaders, university lecturers, political activists & authors.

I'd say the line should be drawn where the speech crosses into advocating or supporting violence, active discrimination, or something else that's covered under existing law. If you're not advocating or supporting some manner of illegal behavior, I don't think there's any grounds to restrict the speech. With that definition you'd undoubtedly let some scummy behavior through, but that's sort of self-policing in that sponsors and teams would still drop a driver (or other athlete) who says enough objectionable but legal crap.

For the example you provide, I think that it does fairly clearly constitute hate speech on a literal level, but not rising to a legal definition. She's not advocating any violence, and it doesn't seem likely that any groups will become empowered to commit violence as a result of what she says.

As for the talk shows and political commentators, some of them should absolutely be taken off the air: the ones who are telling their followers to stockpile guns in case a member of the opposition party wins, or the ones implying they should go to polling places and make sure 'illegals' don't vote. That sort of speech shouldn't be protected, in my opinion. It does a huge amount of damage. As for people who are just spouting unpleasant opinions, well, that's unpleasant. Saying homosexuals will burn in hell isn't illegal speech on its own, but if it's designed to inflame groups who will then go and murder homosexuals as a result it dips sharply into the grey.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Miami, Florida
Zoue wrote:
I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.

This further proves my point of social police brigade at their finest!
What Martina said was unequivocally FACT and The laws of biology and common sense, regardless of whatever the mentally ill and those whom support and champion their condition and are lurking, just looking to cry foul, supersede ALL!!!

And that is something that cannot be challenged no matter how much people WANT to THINK it can or should be, and it is not open for debate or discussion and the people who question things like this and jumped all over Martina are the ones who should be scrutinized for being class A idiots.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm not talking obvious ones, like "all (insert demographic of choice) are (insert insult of choice.)" But there are plenty of occasions where people seize on every difference of opinion and label it hate speech in an attempt to shut down discussion. Witness Martina Navratilova who attracted immense bile recently for simply expressing the view that men who transgender to women have an unfair advantage in women's sports. She was accused of hate speech when all she was doing was expressing a concern based on biology, not ideology.

This further proves my point of social police brigade at their finest!
What Martina said was unequivocally FACT and The laws of biology and common sense, regardless of whatever the mentally ill and those whom support and champion their condition and are lurking, just looking to cry foul, supersede ALL!!!

And that is something that cannot be challenged no matter how much people WANT to THINK it can or should be, and it is not open for debate or discussion and the people who question things like this and jumped all over Martina are the ones who should be scrutinized for being class A idiots.

yeah that's kind of my point. It doesn't matter whether you agree with Martina or not, but she should be allowed to express a view without being accused of hate speech.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group