I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

[Szuchow]

And nowhere am I advocating for the violent suppression of opinion. I am talking about countering speech with speech.

So when faced with an unpopular opinion this opinion just needs to be shouted down?
What if a minority, yet a very vocal one is going to shout down (the basically more popular) opinions?
Do you have a quick (sorry, if i probably missed it in a previous post) evaluation/recommendation for the situation in Poland where the rule of law is slowly getting eroded* and obviously an attack on all kinds of freedoms is imminent, if not actually in progress and this seemingly being in support of more or less half the population?

Whats the criteria met for you (if it is, i dont know your actual position on those) concerning hate speech or incitement for violence?



*EU court just declared forced retirement of polish judges (which is an attack on the independence of the judiciary) as being against EU law.

Polish pm said that changes won't be stopped regardless of EU opinion. This is only the tip of iceberg.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And nowhere am I advocating for the violent suppression of opinion. I am talking about countering speech with speech.

So when faced with an unpopular opinion this opinion just needs to be shouted down?
What if a minority, yet a very vocal one is going to shout down (the basically more popular) opinions?

If violence is required for a set of ideals to gain traction, I'd suggest that those ideals must not be very convincing.

Do you have a quick (sorry, if i probably missed it in a previous post) evaluation/recommendation for the situation in Poland where the rule of law is slowly getting eroded* and obviously an attack on all kinds of freedoms is imminent, if not actually in progress and this seemingly being in support of more or less half the population?

No, I don't. The people there seem quite happy with their fascism for the most part.

Whats the criteria met for you (if it is, i dont know your actual position on those) concerning hate speech or incitement for violence?

Firstly, I would not ban any hate speech. Using slurs or shopping stereotypes is obnoxious, but it results in nothing but hurt feelings in and of itself, absent an incitement. We here in America have a standard for incitement that includes 1) a clear urging to commit criminal acts coupled with 2) the clear capability of people to actually do those things.

I think i already asked this, but whats wrong with asking someone to kill my spouse? I am asking because one thing baffles me: Free speech is one of the prime values, yet when someone asks someone else to kill his spouse he gets a life sentence regularly, just like the person who actually pulled the trigger. So, obviously in this situation there seemingly seems to be made no difference between actually pulling the trigger of a gun and just talking to someone (i am leaving payment out of the equation for ease of discussion. Some people ask others without offering anything in return).

That is incitement. It is not protected speech.

There seems to be a not well defined gray zone (i just quickly read up on incitement/"Anstiftung") between just "talking" and "determining** someone to kill someone else". So we are on a slippery slope anyway. There is probably no "free speech" and actually probably noone wants "free speech". We just seem to have different ideas of where to put the limit, and i concede that the mileages may vary wildly. I understand and accept the good intend to put the limit exactly where it is in such a spouse-killing scenario. But i dare do ask (free speech and stuff, ya know  ): Do we, and if so, where do we put the limit for demonstrably *bad* ideas which have no other intend than to harm other people. Sure, some neo fascists may vey well intentionally walk the line here, but where to put the limit for spreading hurtful ideas and being active in the decision making of others to hurt third parties? Isnt that the modus operandi of modern extremists (political neo-fasics just as well as islamist propagandists who want to [ab]use rule of law in order to abandon it). I am not talking about a general rule, but for ideas we do know are harmful, and harmful only.

Talking back to those people and winning the war of ideals would be my favored path forward.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] fascist speech was unopposed for so long [...]

That might be the problem there.

By unopposed I mean that legal actions weren't taken despite laws being in place. I would blame this on lack of political will and misguided tolerance.

If I were in your shoes I'd either leave my homeland, or take up arms.

[Szuchow]

That might be the problem there.

By unopposed I mean that legal actions weren't taken despite laws being in place. I would blame this on lack of political will and misguided tolerance.

If I were in your shoes I'd either leave my homeland, or take up arms.

I'm not too keen on running from (large) bunch of troglodytes too dumb to realize that their idols would deem them subhuman and exterminated them*. Fascists already said that they will march in a few days to celebrate independence day. I guess joining with people doing counter marches will be a fitting move.

*Not that I'm so heroic, I merely judge danger to be minimal. Also my University path wasn't all that conductive to international career.

[Thumpalumpacus]

By unopposed I mean that legal actions weren't taken despite laws being in place. I would blame this on lack of political will and misguided tolerance.

If I were in your shoes I'd either leave my homeland, or take up arms.

I'm not too keen on running from (large) bunch of troglodytes too dumb to realize that their idols would deem them subhuman and exterminated them*. Fascists already said that they will march in a few days to celebrate independence day. I guess joining with people doing counter marches will be a fitting move.

*Not that I'm so heroic, I merely judge danger to be minimal. Also my University path wasn't all that conductive to international career.

Be careful, bud.

[Szuchow]

If I were in your shoes I'd either leave my homeland, or take up arms.

I'm not too keen on running from (large) bunch of troglodytes too dumb to realize that their idols would deem them subhuman and exterminated them*. Fascists already said that they will march in a few days to celebrate independence day. I guess joining with people doing counter marches will be a fitting move.

*Not that I'm so heroic, I merely judge danger to be minimal. Also my University path wasn't all that conductive to international career.

Be careful, bud.

I will. But lets us not over dramatize - it ain't '30 so I don't have many reasons to be afraid. At the risk of sounding puffed up I faced men in battle with unsheathed steel*, limp-wristed fascist for whose height of courage is to attack teenage girls aren't all that scary, unless in big numbers and if so years of bike riding blessed me with good endurance.

I appreciate the sentiment though.

*Or to say it more humbly and I suppose more accurately I took part in whatever tournaments young member of knight brotherhood could.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not too keen on running from (large) bunch of troglodytes too dumb to realize that their idols would deem them subhuman and exterminated them*. Fascists already said that they will march in a few days to celebrate independence day. I guess joining with people doing counter marches will be a fitting move.

*Not that I'm so heroic, I merely judge danger to be minimal. Also my University path wasn't all that conductive to international career.

Be careful, bud.

I will. But lets us not over dramatize - it ain't '30 so I don't have many reasons to be afraid. At the risk of sounding puffed up I faced men in battle with unsheathed steel*, limp-wristed fascist for whose height of courage is to attack teenage girls aren't all that scary, unless in big numbers and if so years of bike riding blessed me with good endurance.

I appreciate the sentiment though.

*Or to say it more humbly and I suppose more accurately I took part in whatever tournaments young member of knight brotherhood could.

Marches and counter-marches can turn into pitched battles pretty quickly.

[Szuchow]

Be careful, bud.

I will. But lets us not over dramatize - it ain't '30 so I don't have many reasons to be afraid. At the risk of sounding puffed up I faced men in battle with unsheathed steel*, limp-wristed fascist for whose height of courage is to attack teenage girls aren't all that scary, unless in big numbers and if so years of bike riding blessed me with good endurance.

I appreciate the sentiment though.

*Or to say it more humbly and I suppose more accurately I took part in whatever tournaments young member of knight brotherhood could.

Marches and counter-marches can turn into pitched battles pretty quickly.

Sure, but I'm not likely to be at the most important one that I imagine will take place in Warsaw.

Sometimes one must just deal with the risk and I think this will be one of such occasions.

[grympy]

It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

They're still humans and humans still have human rights.

And if you don't see them as humans then, ironically, you're as bad as they are. Dehumanizing people is exactly why they're so bad. You don't defeat the Nazis by becoming one of them.

You need a lesson in non-stupidity ... but I don't think you'll ever learn it.

A very emotive issue.

I absolutely support  free speech for nazis ,not to mention conservative politicians, anti vaxers, and talk back radio callers, to name a few  categories of people I don't care for. 

Australia has anti hate speech laws. I do not support them because I think it's a form of censorship. 
 
Neither Australia nor the US was invaded and occupied during WW2. We did not have millions of our countrymen exterminated like vermin.  I suspect that had that happened here , I might have a very different view of the rights of today's nazis. THAT DIFFERENT VIEW IS ALSO A VIEW COVERED BY FREE SPEECH. 

I do not agree with Szuchow's views on this matter .  I try to understand .

  I'm in the minority in my own country about free speech. I am free to hold that view. I am also in the minority about the shameful way my country treats refugees. I have held these views for years and for years I have  been abused  for holding them . Free speech is important to me., especially because there  are people who would deny me that right.

Hurling  insults is counter productive to rational discourse, no matter how warranted it may seem.   I don't always take my own advice, but I try.

[Szuchow]

It sure is. Nazis, fascists and communists have right to shut up and people defending their "rights" need a history lesson.

They're still humans and humans still have human rights.

And if you don't see them as humans then, ironically, you're as bad as they are. Dehumanizing people is exactly why they're so bad. You don't defeat the Nazis by becoming one of them.

You need a lesson in non-stupidity ... but I don't think you'll ever learn it.

A very emotive issue.

I absolutely support  free speech for nazis ,not to mention conservative politicians, anti vaxers, and talk back radio callers, to name a few  categories of people I don't care for. 

Australia has anti hate speech laws. I do not support them because I think it's a form of censorship. 
 
Neither Australia nor the US was invaded and occupied during WW2. We did not have millions of our countrymen exterminated like vermin.  I suspect that had that happened here , I might have a very different view of the rights of today's nazis. THAT DIFFERENT VIEW IS ALSO A VIEW COVERED BY FREE SPEECH. 

I do not agree with Szuchow's views on this matter .  I try to understand .

  I'm in the minority in my own country about free speech. I am free to hold that view. I am also in the minority about the shameful way my country treats refugees. I have held these views for years and for years I have  been abused  for holding them .  Free speech is important to me., especially because there  are people who would deny me that right.

Hurling  insults is counter productive to rational discourse, no matter how warranted it may seem.   I don't always take my own advice, but I try.

I see nothing particularly emotive here - people must deal with all manner of limitations imposed by the law and I see no reason for which speech should be excluded from being limited. In fact even USA does not have absolute free speech (as far as I know at least).

To use example I used few time already in this thread I don't see why people should be allowed to call for ethnic cleansing* without consequences for it. Such speech brings nothing of value - I don't see society benefiting from allowing such sentiments to be stated.

But I do not see need for further repetition, nor I think I will convince you so I just thank you for attempting to understand.

*http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...p?tid=3067

[Dānu]

Best of luck, Szuchow. I hope you stay safe.

[Szuchow]

Best of luck, Szuchow.  I hope you stay safe.

Thank you.

As for being safe I don't think that I am in any danger. Still I appreciate the sentiment.

[jerry mcmasters]

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

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

My thought would be free speech above everything.  If someone's speech is hateful and oppressive either one of two things can happen- it is out in the open for all to see and condemn it as ugly, oppressive, and hateful and ridicule and condemn it as such.  Or it will gain popularity and traction and lead to bad things.  If the latter, then fuck it, people are a joke, democracy is a joke, popular sovereignty is a joke, the judgement of one's fellow human beings is a joke, whatever experiments the human race has been making in the last few hundred years with republicanism, popular sovereignty, individual rights, checks and balances, etc etc were all just a joke and if we're that fucking dumb we deserve whatever we get.  But at least it would have been our choice to make.

[Deesse23]

IMHO this is evidence you don't care for your fellow human beings, just for yourself. Not acceptable to me.

[jerry mcmasters]

IMHO this is evidence you don't care for your fellow human beings, just for yourself. Not acceptable to me.

Was that directed to me?

[Chas]

And I'm speaking from my perspective as an American, where while I find the vocal extremism here dangerous in principle, we still have enough freedom to speak up against, and shout down, idiots like those in Charlottesville.

*playing devils advocate now*

But isnt shouting down others violent supression of their opinions? Isnt it hypocritical to ask the state to allow others to voice their opinions and then shout them down yourself? What if (and when) the ones with hateful ideas  shout you down? Once they gain control, they have lots of freedom to change your society to what they think is a *better* one. Shouldnt society be an *open marketplace for exchanging ideas*? Isnt the argument of free speech that the better ideas will prevail (and not be *enforced* by shouting down others)?

There is a distinct difference between the government preventing speech and citizens opposed shouting it down.
The former is a violation of free speech, the latter a celebration.

[Szuchow]

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

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

My thought would be free speech above everything.  If someone's speech is hateful and oppressive either one of two things can happen- it is out in the open for all to see and condemn it as ugly, oppressive, and hateful and ridicule and condemn it as such.  Or it will gain popularity and traction and lead to bad things.  If the latter, then fuck it, people are a joke, democracy is a joke, popular sovereignty is a joke, the judgement of one's fellow human beings is a joke, whatever experiments the human race has been making in the last few hundred years with republicanism, popular sovereignty, individual rights, checks and balances, etc etc were all just a joke and if we're that fucking dumb we deserve whatever we get.  But at least it would have been our choice to make.

So it seems that we disagree. No need to rehash what I wrote earlier but I think that state has obligation to protect it citizens and if this mean jailing/fining/some other form of punishment for fascists, (neo)nazists or communists then I see no problem with it. Why should hateful minority be allowed to try make live of others miserable?

[SYZ]

We have a case in Australia at the moment regarding one of tennis's greats, Margaret Court, who's publicly
vented her hatred of gays and lesbians, and also same-sex marriages.  Court is deeply religious, and says
that the bible is her guidebook in life, and that it's inerrant.  She works now as an independent Pentecostal
minister.



One arena in our major tennis complex in Melbourne was named in her honour, but there've
been calls from several sectors to have her name removed due to her continuing homophobic
public comments.  In particular, the LGBTQI lobby is supporting this most strongly.

On the other hand, many reactionary conservatives—usually older Aussies—are claiming that she
has the right of free speech, and should be allowed to state her opinions in public unimpeded. In
Australia, so-called "hate speech" is speech or expression which is capable of instilling or inciting
hatred of, or prejudice towards, a person or group of people on a specified ground, such as sexual
orientation or gender identity.  It's also now prohibited in international law as per the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Australia is a signatory member.

A few choice quotes from this vile woman:

"We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, so is adultery, fornication, all those things …

"Tennis is full of lesbians and transgender children are the work of the devil...

"A gay lobby is trying to get into the minds of our children through Australia’s Safe Schools anti-bullying program...

"Everybody knows that it is wrong but they’re after our young ones, that’s what they are after...

She would "stop using QANTAS in protest against the airline's promotion of same-sex marriage...

She said "homosexuality would destroy a person’s life, and we’re there to help gay people overcome...

"It was a sad day for our nation when Australians voted "yes" to marriage equality...

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did—get in to the minds of the children...


    

[Szuchow]

We have a case in Australia at the moment regarding one of tennis's greats, Margaret Court, who's publicly
vented her hatred of gays and lesbians, and also same-sex marriages.  Court is deeply religious, and says
that the bible is her guidebook in life, and that it's inerrant.  She works now as an independent Pentecostal
minister.



One arena in our major tennis complex in Melbourne was named in her honour, but there've
been calls from several sectors to have her name removed due to her continuing homophobic
public comments.  In particular, the LGBTQI lobby is supporting this most strongly.

On the other hand, many reactionary conservatives—usually older Aussies—are claiming that she
has the right of free speech, and should be allowed to state her opinions in public unimpeded. In
Australia, so-called "hate speech" is speech or expression which is capable of instilling or inciting
hatred of, or prejudice towards, a person or group of people on a specified ground, such as sexual
orientation or gender identity.  It's also now prohibited in international law as per the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Australia is a signatory member.

A few choice quotes from this vile woman:

"We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, so is adultery, fornication, all those things …

"Tennis is full of lesbians and transgender children are the work of the devil...

"A gay lobby is trying to get into the minds of our children through Australia’s Safe Schools anti-bullying program...

"Everybody knows that it is wrong but they’re after our young ones, that’s what they are after...

She would "stop using QANTAS in protest against the airline's promotion of same-sex marriage...

She said "homosexuality would destroy a person’s life, and we’re there to help gay people overcome...

"It was a sad day for our nation when Australians voted "yes" to marriage equality...

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did—get in to the minds of the children...


    

I don't think that piece of shit claiming that homosexuals are after "our young" deserve something being named after her and if such decision was made after she said this then it is beyond insane.

I would not have issue with her being prosecuted. There are consequences for all kinds of doings so I see no reason for which there shouldn't be ones for accusing people of pedophilia or unjustly comparing them to Hitler.

I don't really see the point of post I must say.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have a case in Australia at the moment regarding one of tennis's greats, Margaret Court, who's publicly
vented her hatred of gays and lesbians, and also same-sex marriages.  Court is deeply religious, and says
that the bible is her guidebook in life, and that it's inerrant.  She works now as an independent Pentecostal
minister.



One arena in our major tennis complex in Melbourne was named in her honour, but there've
been calls from several sectors to have her name removed due to her continuing homophobic
public comments.  In particular, the LGBTQI lobby is supporting this most strongly.

On the other hand, many reactionary conservatives—usually older Aussies—are claiming that she
has the right of free speech, and should be allowed to state her opinions in public unimpeded. In
Australia, so-called "hate speech" is speech or expression which is capable of instilling or inciting
hatred of, or prejudice towards, a person or group of people on a specified ground, such as sexual
orientation or gender identity.  It's also now prohibited in international law as per the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Australia is a signatory member.

A few choice quotes from this vile woman:

"We know that homosexuality is a lust of the flesh, so is adultery, fornication, all those things …

"Tennis is full of lesbians and transgender children are the work of the devil...

"A gay lobby is trying to get into the minds of our children through Australia’s Safe Schools anti-bullying program...

"Everybody knows that it is wrong but they’re after our young ones, that’s what they are after...

She would "stop using QANTAS in protest against the airline's promotion of same-sex marriage...

She said "homosexuality would destroy a person’s life, and we’re there to help gay people overcome...

"It was a sad day for our nation when Australians voted "yes" to marriage equality...

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did—get in to the minds of the children...


    

She has the right to free speech, as do you and I. And just like you and I, she owns the consequences. So long as that isn't implemented in the form of stifling laws enforced by the government, I don't see a problem. Your name gets taken off a building? There's no physical harm involved. That's the people using their free-speech -- and perhaps votes, with some at least -- to change the name.

I'll spare her some concern when she faces criminal liability for her speech; free-speech laws exist to protect unpopular speech, because popular speech needs little defense. But I don't see renaming a building as persecution and wouldn't object to it.

[jerry mcmasters]

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

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

My thought would be free speech above everything.  If someone's speech is hateful and oppressive either one of two things can happen- it is out in the open for all to see and condemn it as ugly, oppressive, and hateful and ridicule and condemn it as such.  Or it will gain popularity and traction and lead to bad things.  If the latter, then fuck it, people are a joke, democracy is a joke, popular sovereignty is a joke, the judgement of one's fellow human beings is a joke, whatever experiments the human race has been making in the last few hundred years with republicanism, popular sovereignty, individual rights, checks and balances, etc etc were all just a joke and if we're that fucking dumb we deserve whatever we get.  But at least it would have been our choice to make.

So it seems that we disagree. No need to rehash what I wrote earlier but I think that state has obligation to protect it citizens and if this mean jailing/fining/some other form of punishment for fascists, (neo)nazists or communists then I see no problem with it. Why should hateful minority be allowed to try make live of others miserable?

I agree no need for a rehash, I recall this has come up before so the broad outlines of the positions are generally understood by all.  My overall worry would be that those in power "protecting" the citizens would find it irresistible to define political opinions opposing theirs as "hate," the greater the opinions differ, the greater the (alleged) hate and therefore the greater the means and tools to silence those opinions.

[Szuchow]

My thought would be free speech above everything.  If someone's speech is hateful and oppressive either one of two things can happen- it is out in the open for all to see and condemn it as ugly, oppressive, and hateful and ridicule and condemn it as such.  Or it will gain popularity and traction and lead to bad things.  If the latter, then fuck it, people are a joke, democracy is a joke, popular sovereignty is a joke, the judgement of one's fellow human beings is a joke, whatever experiments the human race has been making in the last few hundred years with republicanism, popular sovereignty, individual rights, checks and balances, etc etc were all just a joke and if we're that fucking dumb we deserve whatever we get.  But at least it would have been our choice to make.

So it seems that we disagree. No need to rehash what I wrote earlier but I think that state has obligation to protect it citizens and if this mean jailing/fining/some other form of punishment for fascists, (neo)nazists or communists then I see no problem with it. Why should hateful minority be allowed to try make live of others miserable?

I agree no need for a rehash, I recall this has come up before so the broad outlines of the positions are generally understood by all.  My overall worry would be that those in power "protecting" the citizens would find it irresistible to define political opinions opposing theirs as "hate," the greater the opinions differ, the greater the (alleged) hate and therefore the greater the means and tools to silence those opinions.

I'm not really worried about such as Poland already has law against let's call it fascist speech* and if anything it is underused and not utilized to silence political opposition. It's true that PiS when it was in opposition deemed itself silenced but how censored one is when one has numerous newspapers supporting one point of view and television which wasn't exactly opposed to spouting thoughts in line with PiS idiocy.

In fact I think that under utilizing this law is (among other things) what led to PiS victory as fascist sentiments were allowed to be spoken without consequences. This is poisonous fruit of too much tolerance and viewpoint that any speech should be protected which isn't unpopular in Poland.


*Whoever publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian state system or incites hatred on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or because of lack of religion, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

[Cavebear]

I agree with free speech in general (speak your thoughts and accept the consequences), but I disagree with the idea that everyone has a right to a publicly-supported soapbox. There is a difference between telling your friends and neighbors et al what you think and forcing them to support you doing so in public. You want to walk the streets condemning something you don't like as loud as you can? Go ahead. But don't demand I help pay for your megaphone.

In other words, say what you want, but don't block traffic while you do. And I was a traffic-blocker in the 70s about the Vietnam War. I was wrong. Not about the war, but about blocking innocent traffic...

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree with free speech in general (speak your thoughts and accept the consequences), but I disagree with the idea that everyone has a right to a publicly-supported soapbox.  There is a difference between telling your friends and neighbors et al what you think and forcing them to support you doing so in public.  You want to walk the streets condemning something you don't like as loud as you can?  Go ahead.  But don't demand I help pay for your megaphone.

In other words, say what you want, but don't block traffic while you do.  And I was a traffic-blocker in the 70s about the Vietnam War.  I was wrong.  Not about the war, but about blocking innocent traffic...

I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

[SYZ]

I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.
This is seen by some commentators here as condoning—even by implication—her constant homophobic and
same-sex marriages and adoption slurs as being acceptable as public commentary. This by a person who, unlike
others, has a readily accessible stage from which to deliver this offensive drivel, and to a wide audience.

Simply because she can serve and return a ball with skill a bit better than that of average players doesn't accord
her the "right" to disparage other members of society—based solely on their gender or sexuality.

I note also that Court publicly supported apartheid in South Africa, and said of Martina Navratilova; "a great player
but I'd like someone at the top who the younger players can look up to. It's very sad for children to be exposed to
homosexuality".  (Both opinions from the 1970s.)

—How would this speech by the Minister for Sports go down...


"I'd like to welcome Margaret to this 50th Anniversary celebration of
her Grand Slam wins, and although she has a head like a fossilised
turtle, [crowd laughs] and is a long-term homophobe, I'm sure we all
extend our appreciation of her outstanding tennis career, particularly
as a proudly cis-gendered person".