rockplough

@Mini-Pinner: "Challenge accepted:" Sorry if I wasn't clear. It wasn't a challenge. You had suggested that my position was there was no room for debate. That's not the case at all. Having said that I don't personally regard the tenets of any organised religion as a valid basis for such dissent. They have no consistency or agreement within themselves let alone with something like the UDHR. But this has become a borderline metaphysical discussion on the nature of human rights. Let's get back to the crux of the matter and your original point which you have alluded to here. "If you truly believe the way forward is to ban the transmission of ideas which someone (who even gets to decide?) deems incorrect then we truly have learned nothing as a society." The way forward? This is already how we do things, and is how a civilised society operates, but by collective consent. It doesn't hinge on the decision of an individual 'someone' unless you're suggesting we live under a bona-fide dictatorship (I'm sure you are not). Contrary to your view I think this shows we have learned, and continue to learn. The only alternative is for the transmission of all ideas - such as those which are hateful, exploitative, or inflammatory - to be completely unexamined and therefore unchecked. Not a world I want to live in, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

@Mini-Pinner: "I believe you may be trying to intentionally misrepresent what I was saying but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just ignorant." No, simply taking your post at face value, but how gracious of you. "Universal human rights is a human invention that is barely a century old now. Previous human rights declarations would exclude different races or women as they saw fit." Factual, but there's no point being made here. All ideas are human inventions. Is it your position that the newness of an idea correlates to its (lack of) validity? I would not agree. The US Civil Right Act is barely *fifty* years old. And so what if previous declarations were deficient? Naturally things have gone before which we would not countenance today. That is human progress. "The word universal is also misleading as many countries do not agree on the content of these documents." You introduced 'the word universal' so are attacking yourself here. "To suggest that we have perfected this and there is no room for dissenting opinions on the status quo is unbelievably naive." Nowhere do I suggest things are perfect, but dissenting opinions on basic human rights? Be my guest. "Second point is semantics." If you say so. The only other meaning doesn't apply either. "An amazing misrepresentation here. I did not suggest that suppression of ideas was the ultimate oppression. I said it was 'a hallmark'." No. You said it was 'THE hallmark' (my emphasis). Singular. A small but profound difference. "I would suggest looking at Hitlers and Stalins regimes as blatant examples of it. Or simply read about propaganda and censorship." Conflation of PB's moderation policy with actual fascist regimes. I'll just leave that one there. "I would argue incitement is an action, not an idea." You don't have to argue it. That's the very point I was making. Incitement is tantamount to an action, but is expressed as an idea. This is why we cannot defend the expression of ideas, in your words "not matter how bad or dangerous we may believe those ideas to be.".

@orientdave: @orientdave: I am of Japanese descent myself. I understand that cultural norms vary. I do however think that the right to not be discriminated against - fundamental to this discussion and current events - is one which is widely considered sacrosanct. That's really the one I was thinking of, but I accept I was not that specific.

@Mini-Pinner: "By moderating the ideas in the comments you are directly asserting that there are correct ideas." Notwithstanding the fact that PB are free to moderate as they see fit, there absolutely *are* correct ideas. That's why we have things like human rights. One of these is the right not to be discriminated against. I'm sure you can join the dots. "That does in fact make you the thought police." Well no, no it doesn't. People are free to think what they like, and quite obviously cannot be prevented from doing so. They are not however free to express what they like. "Suppression of ideas is the hallmark of oppression, not matter how bad or dangerous we may believe those ideas to be." A somewhat privileged viewpoint, that suppression of your ideas is the worst thing that could happen to you. The hallmark of oppression is actual oppression, in the context of which merely having your ideas suppressed would be a luxury compared to being trafficked for slavery, having your possessions seized, or being herded into ghettos and other such horrors. And finally some ideas are dangerous which is why expressing them is prohibited by laws against incitement and the like. Free speech is not absolute. It does not mean - and has never meant - being able to say whatever you like, wherever you like, to whoever you like.