I think not, You are creating a mob mentality to destroy something you disagree with. Is that something I misunderstood?

Think about it. If everybody that disagrees with my politics decided to get my sites banned, or yours and they actively encouraged others to do this what would be the result to you or me?

I know what can happen, I have personal experience.

Hey Guy,

I think that unfortunately this post does exactly what you are berating chris and muti for. You cannot restrict their freedom of speech either and that’s what you are trying to do invariably. It’s tricky, but I think it’s relevant.

You are calling them out for speaking freely and asking the community to do the same.

We are also well within our rights to ask people to flag their content as objectionable. If you know what I mean?

Nics last blog post..Murderball (Wheelchair Rugby) at the paralympics

So what then, Chris, cover it all up and pretend as if we’re actually OK? That’s the sort of misinformation tactic that nearly won Germany the world wars. Why? They believed they were winning, because their media told them so.

I don’t think it’s up to us to decide what’s “healthy” or not when it comes to issues like this.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Voltaire

Wogan Mays last blog post..TwitterSA v3.0

Guy: Agreed. Completely. It’s an unfortunate trait of an immature or pretend democracy, that pll will pay lip-service to the concept, but when the going gets tough and stuff they don’t like gets in their faces, they want censorship. For the record, I think the guys at SA Sucks are simply I-told-you-so fear-mongerers, but that’s my 50 cents.

Nic: You’ll get in a really awkward circuitous argument with that line of reasoning, mate. There are really two positions one can take here: Either you say Freedom of speech (with the caveat of no Hate Speech) or you say Censorship. You really can’t call the exclusion of Hate Speech, censorship in itself.)

Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to these guys, becuase they’re spreading hatespeech and inciting violence. That’s it. Contact the HRC. That’s what they’re for.

reds last blog post..73% of South Africa is now on my shitlist

@Andre You can call the exclusion of hate speech censorship. The moment you deny someone the right to express themselves it is censorship.

Personally I am offended by those people but I am even more offended by religious people that denigrate others religious beliefs, for instance Christians saying that Muslims are going to hell.

I would much rather censor them than people who are just damned stupid. But even so that would be censoring them so rather than calling for the banning of these rabid fools, I engage them in conversation and point out the folly of their beliefs.

I know I don’t make a difference to the brainwashed and those people on ZAsucks are just that brainwashed. But I do open the eyes of those that can reason. I sometime wonder whether ignoring them is the right thing to do, but I KNOW BANNING AND CENSORING them IS THE WRONG THING TO DO.

Ok, so instead of flagging blogs that clearly violate TOS and promote racism and hatred, we should ignore them or try and reason with them?

What if we came across a blog promoting child pornography, or crime, or animal cruelty or hatred against whites / Afrikaans people / various religions, do we ignore those too and allow them the right to free speech?

At the end of the day, we should be more concerned with the types of poisonous (and often inaccurate) blogs out there that are adding fuel to an already smoldering fire than get our knickers in a knot about censorship and martyrdom.

Those blogs are where you should be targeting your anger, not people who are opposed to hateful content that promotes anger, racism and spite.

‘I do open the eyes of those that can reason.’

Good luck with that, from what I’ve seen of these people, they don’t look like they’re open to calm discussions and a good telling off.

Roxs last blog post..The Worst Copy Sins

@ red & fox: have you looked at the constitutional definition of “hate speech”? do you understand the meaning of “incitement to violence”? Perhaps I didn’t read enough of the za sucks crap, but I certainly didn’t see anything illegal.

Free speech is limited only when it comes into conflict with the rights of others. Child pornography is clearly a violation of a child that outweighs free speech rights.

Criticism of religion does not impinge on your right to practice your religion freely, so it is protected free speech (if it wasn’t then bible bashers would be guilty of hate speech every time they denigrate pagans or satanists, for example, as those practices are protected by freedom of religion).

And there are bloggers in SA that are quite critical of Afrikaaners (e.g. Richard Catto).

Guy McLaren has it right: you change attitudes by confronting people, not by banning their opinions and forcing them into little fantasy enclaves where they define their own twisted reality.

As Twylite says:

Guy McLaren has it right: you change attitudes by confronting people, not by banning their opinions and forcing them into little fantasy enclaves where they define their own twisted reality.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
~ Voltaire ~

Frankly, I consider ZA Sucks a valuable opportunity for an honest conversation about the issues that concern them.

Bandaids don’t heal brain tumours, as much as passive aggressive sycophantic hypocrisy about South Africa’s real problems won’t get to the root causes of why people are angry, pissed off with each other, etc.

That these bloggers have had the courage to stand up and say what they honestly think — irrespective of whether, I or others agree with them on any particular or some or other issue, is not the point — they are getting to the core of their feelings, speaking them out, providing an opportunity for those who disagree to put their views forward

THAT IS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS — THAT IS WHAT LIVING IN A DEMOCRACY MEANS

NOT THIS PRETEND WE LIKE EACH OTHER.. CRAP. IF SOMEONE DOESN’T LIKE ME, I’D RATHER THEY TOLD ME TO MY FACE, GAVE ME THE EXACT REASONS — WHATEVER OR HOWEVER INSULTING THEY MAY BE (THEY MAY BE TRUE!!!!!), AND WE CAN EITHER FIND OUR COMMON GROUND, AGREE TO GIVE EACH OTHER SPACE, OR FIND WE ACTUALLY RESPECT EACH OTHER..

It is often the most virulent racists (white) or (black) who will give the other side respect, if treated honourably; and honestly; as opposed to being sucked up to and pretended to.

Problem is we might as well delete the word HONOUR from the dictionary in South Africa, because nobody has a clue what it means, nor that it is its absence that contributes to the ‘racism’ and issues za sucks are upset about.

Think about it!!!!!!!

JAGCorpSwans last blog post.."In God’s Name": Profitting from Religious Disaster ($lave & Cannon Fodder Breeding); OR "Bringing Hope to Diepsloot"?