Question about Censorship

~ Clarissa

Historically very recently in Great Britain people were arrested for being gay. Today, a woman is charged for using the word “faggot” in a private communication without any reference to anybody’s sexuality. This happened within a blink of an eye. From one extreme, it went to another.

I have a very sincere question to people who support censorship. How do you know that tomorrow your beliefs, which are completely normal and run of the mill today, won’t be declared chargeable offenses? How do you know that this morning you didn’t send a text message or write anything on social media that tomorrow will be used to deprive you of your livelihood and even freedom? What gives you this complete certainty that it won’t touch you?

This is not a rhetorical question. We’ve seen this happen to so many people so many times. Old statements that at the time they were made were considered normal and acceptable are used to destroy people today. Why wouldn’t it happen to you? What is the mechanism you use to reassure yourself that you will be immune?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

24 thoughts on “Question about Censorship”

    1. Of course. I’m watching it all and wondering why this isn’t clear to everybody.

      I’m obviously completely opposed to persecuting gay people in any way. Do I even need to say it? But this is not the way to avoid that. This is the way to do the opposite.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Absolutely it doesn’t. We were told very specifically at work that racism is not in the intent but in the results. If you fail more black students than white because they can’t pass the exam, you are still a racist.

      Disparate impact.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. “using the faggot”

    Well, this is why they’re eliminating trial by jury, because no jury would convict her.

    And… how did the government find out about the text? Did some retarded faggot snitch on her or was it preemptive government snooping?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yes, the friend to whom she sent the text. They had a fight, and the friend decided to retaliate. The government is now in the business of adjudicating cat fights between buddies.

      “Your honor! Jackie called me a son of a bitch. This is sexism. Put her in jail!”

      The solution is to not have friends because who knows what meme or joke can be dug out of the history of text messages after a minor spat. It’s also a good idea not to have a personal life because one usually expresses oneself very freely around a romantic partner. These are people who have tons of dirt on us. N and I exchange very off-color jokes all the time. One could occupy an entire prosecutor’s office for a year on our private jokes alone.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. Thank you for the link! I had a fit of giggles after reading the words “condemned by Indigenous groups for spreading residential school denialism rhetoric”. Poor Canada. Poor, poor Canada.

          Like

          Reply

  4. While I generally don’t support censorship, I do support it to a certain extent. My belief is this. You should have a specific censorship in 3 areas. Schools, TV, and in public.

    Please allow me to explain. As much as the enemy likes to use the phrase “to protect the children” before they do something absolutely horrendous or evil. That doesn’t mean we should not be trying to protect the kids. Note the word kids, not adults, not teens, not people who are 30 but still considered by society to be kids. No I mean 12 and under.

    I feel that there does need to be a certain level of censorship. In the public sphere it used to be punishable to drink in public, to swear in public, nudity in public, etc. None of them had particularly massive fines or punishments. Basically you got stuck in the jail for a day or so, basically a slap on the wrist to encourage good behavior. I feel that this really needs to be brought back. Please note, I am not subscribing to massive heavy handedness, rather a return to cultural norms.

    For the TVs, this one is a bit more troublesome. Frankly the censors went way too far and then the backlash went even further in the opposite direction. There is no real good solution here, but I would like to see some of the excess pruned back a bit.

    Schools. This one I have to draw a hard line on. The public sphere and TV, both have a mix of adults and kids so its hard to keep stuff from kids without ticking off the adults. Schools however. No, there isn’t a mix, there isn’t any uncertainty. No, a hard line must be drawn. The LGBT stuff, the tranny stuff, anything of that nature needs to be absolutely torched and any teachers, administrators, etc who promote it, defend it, or excuse it need to be fired and barred from education.

    This is the bare-bones of my two cent.

    • – W

    Like

    Reply

    1. In schools it’s not censorship. It’s selecting appropriate material. Nobody introduces quantum theory to third graders not because it’s censored but because they don’t need it. They need LGBT even less than quantum theory (whatever that is, I’m not a specialist).

      Like

      Reply

  5. Today, a woman is charged for using the word “faggot” in a private communication without any reference to anybody’s sexuality. 

    You buried the lede here. She used this word for the man who physically assaulted her.

    Elizabeth Kinney, 34, an aged care worker from Tranmere in northwest England, sent a heated series of messages to a former friend last year describing how a mutual male acquaintance had beaten her so badly she needed hospitalisation, and included photos of her injuries.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Forget the woman, though. Did you hear about the school teacher in Ireland who is jailed for life for refusing to use preferred pronouns?

        That part of the world has really lost it.

        Like

        Reply

  6. Here is a sincere answer to your question: Of course it should not be allowed to publicly tell people to commit crimes. Also it should not be allowed to lie about the Holocaust or use Nazi symbols, at least in former Nazi states like Germany.

    To me it makes sense that I should not state publicly that all homosexuals should be killed, or to tell people to go out in the street and smash SUVs because they are bad for the climate. Many countries in the world have laws against this kind of speech and we live very happily with them. The US is the exception and it is often shocking to me to hear what insane things people are allowed to say publicly. I think it is corrosive to society if it is allowed to deny the holocaust etc.

    About the news story you linked: Of course what you say in private should be protected by free speech laws and also using the word faggot is clearly not telling anyone to commit a crime, so this story makes no sense. I checked the story and the pictures accompanying it are clearly AI generated. Do you think this is for real? I don’t have time to check this in detail, but it sounds fake.

    Like

    Reply

  7. “faggot”

    No one else is volunteering to be a pedantic twit, so I guess it’s up to me! So, “faggot” in some parts of the British Isles is not traditionally about gay or feminine men. In Ireland (and presumably part of England, given Irish migration to the UK) it referred to a person who was lazy and/or useless.

    One of the most famous Christmas songs in the UK is “Fairytale of New York” about an Irish musician in the drunk tank on Christmas Eve in New York and includes memories of an argument with a woman (also Irish, also a musician also pretty dysfunctional).

    At one point the woman sings “You scumbag, you maggot, You cheap lousy faggot“

    Although one of the authors pointed out the slur has nothing to do with gay men, its very existence makes people nervous now and some media outlets censor the word or use an alternate take “you’re cheap and you’re haggard” which is kind of blah…

    I asked an Irish person if they would ever censor the word in Ireland they were offended at the very idea.

    Knowing that (as many, many people in the UK should) the verdict is all the more retarded and the spazz of a judge should be disbarred (or whatever they do in England).

    Video here:

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. As far as I know, here in France, slurs, insults, and defamation, have to be public to be illegal. The idea being that in a conversation between two people (or a closed, small group of people), whatever is said is not conducive to public disorder.

    Think about it. In the UK, you can be tried and possibly sent to jail for PRIVATE conversations. Conversations by mail are especially dangerous, because they leave a trace. That’s quite Orwellian, since what is unsaid eventually becomes unthought. Actually, it seems, that’s what British authorities are trying to achieve: control over what people think. The nature of correct thinking being determined by authorities, of course.

    Italian-born 17th century, French statesman Cardinal Mazarin famously wrote: Act with anyone who is (presently) your friend as if he were a future enemy. In the Latin original: Cum quocumque amico esse, agas ac si futurus esset inimicus.

    It’s truer than ever. Alas.

    Like

    Reply

    1. ” In the UK, you can be tried and possibly sent to jail for PRIVATE conversations”

      The UK imports large numbers of uneducated violent, unsocialized men from chaotic societies that despise British values in order to keep people fearful in public. Now it’s going after private conversations to keep them fearful and nervous in private.

      Like

      Reply

    2. The next stop on this journey is punishing people for not saying the prescribed things. Everybody is unhappy that I keep bringing up the USSR, so I won’t. Even though it’s very much to the point here.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “The next stop on this journey is punishing people for not saying the prescribed things.”

        Actually, we are already there. Frances Widdowson was just fined and jailed briefly for having the temerity to question the supposed 215 children secretly buried at the Kamloops residential school at UVic, a publicly funded university. Supposedly Jim McMurty (the high chool teacher that was fired for mentioning that the supposed residential school genocides were actually the result of TB and other communicable diseases) was also there, but neither he nor Frances were questioned by any of the media. Instead the usual colourful “First Nations” make-work circus did all the talking ;-D

        https://vicnews.com/2025/12/02/one-bc-event-at-uvic-draws-hundreds-of-protesters/

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to cliff arroyo Cancel reply