“We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organisations.”
The "freedom of..." statement seems "inclusive", yet there is this exclusion: "...do not represent the values of...". Now it is apparent that "freedoms" are second to the controlling "values of", which obviously maintains censorship of freedoms as a value.
freedoms != censorshipThis blatant internal contradiction occurs in the three sentence space of the statement, which shows that logic and rationality are not part of their values.
The details are not that important, but here they are: Dawkins tweeted a video of a feminist and a Muslim singing a song which demonstrated their commonality. That's it.
So what is important to these folks is not freedoms, it is preventing feminist/Islamic butt-hurt for whatever reason.
I personally doubt the feminist's claim of threats of violence. Most feminist hyperbole is outside the realm of reality by a considerable margin. Still, the event should happen with Dawkins appearing, and police protection given if and where needed. Freedoms are that important; butt-hurt is not.
1 comment:
I disagree with your assessment that this is a contradiction, Stan.
It is perfectly clear to ANY reader that the 'Freedom of Speech' mentioned applies only to them, and that it is voided when and if the speech is deemed 'unneccesary' by NECSS or if they determine that it does not represent their values... whatever those might be this week.
It's disgusting, but not at all uncommon; certainly not a blatant internal contradiction. What disturbs me is that they don't seem to care who sees it. Inner Ringers are usually a little more discreet. No need to tip the rubes *too* early, don'tcha know?
Post a Comment