Freedom of speech is abused so much. Racists can use it to express their bullshit beliefs and opinions, same with homophobic people.....
And the problem with that is what? If you don't like or don't believe or disapprove of what people say, then ignore them. Is there still a Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park? Does anyone take any notice of what the people there say?
There's often talk these days about how political correctness has gone mad and that people fear that they can't say or do certain things for fear of offending others.
And the problem with that is what? If you don't like or don't believe or disapprove of what people say, then ignore them. Is there still a Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park? Does anyone take any notice of what the people there say?
So are you suggesting that having someone write black c*** on your car is OK and if you don't like it you should just ignore it and shut up?
So are you suggesting that having someone write black c*** on your car is OK and if you don't like it you should just ignore it and shut up?
What does your example have to do with free speech? Are you suggesting that if someone wrote "I like kittens" on your car, that would be fine?
You're talking about criminal damage. That's completely different to someone saying that in the street ... to which I'd merely retort they need their eyes tested, and walk on.
You appear to object to the concept of free speech; what you overlook is that the fact you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
What does your example have to do with free speech? Are you suggesting that if someone wrote "I like kittens" on your car, that would be fine?
You're talking about criminal damage. That's completely different to someone saying that in the street ... to which I'd merely retort they need their eyes tested, and walk on.
You appear to object to the concept of free speech; what you overlook is that the fact you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
So writing something on my car is not OK because it is criminal damage (you can write something in the dust or frost on a car without actually damaging it by the way), but opening the window and shouting it at me, or passing me in the street and saying it is fine?
You say that curtailing 'free speech' is treading a dangerous path - I would say that allowing 'free speech' to the degree where people can be openly offensive and insulting on the grounds of race, religion, being Polish or whatever is the thin end of a very pernicious wedge indeed. Because once it is officially acceptable to behave in that way (and how else would repealing the current legislation be viewed?), does it not confer a degree of respectability on those views and bring some people that much closer to the idea that if you can say that kind of stuff openly it is because the recipients of the insults are actually inferior and don't deserve better treatment?
Our forefathers would have fought for nothing if we were not allowed freedom of speech. I think there are far too many people who are overly PC and throw around accusations of racism,sexism,aegism etc when someone has a perfectly logical valid point to make. I do not agree with anyone being blatantly any of these things but I DO resent my right to free speech being hijacked by do gooders who try and accuse me of being so.
Our forefathers would have fought for nothing if we were not allowed freedom of speech. I think there are far too many people who are overly PC and throw around accusations of racism,sexism,aegism etc when someone has a perfectly logical valid point to make. I do not agree with anyone being blatantly any of these things but I DO resent my right to free speech being hijacked by do gooders who try and accuse me of being so.
So in a nutshell, you shoul dhav ethe freedom to say whatever you want, but no-one should be able to exercise their right to free speech and respond?
Either everyone has free speech and can say what they want, or no-one does. Its not an us/them thing.
........................- I would say that allowing 'free speech' to the degree where people can be openly offensive and insulting on the grounds of race, religion, being Polish or whatever is the thin end of a very pernicious wedge indeed. Because once it is officially acceptable to behave in that way (and how else would repealing the current legislation be viewed?), does it not confer a degree of respectability on those views and bring some people that much closer to the idea that if you can say that kind of stuff openly it is because the recipients of the insults are actually inferior and don't deserve better treatment?
I mustn't be explaining myself very well, because I think you're missing my point completely. Free speech has the exact opposite effect to "confer a degree of respectability" on what someone says, because there's no "if" about "say that kind of stuff openly".
As I've said before, when people can say whatever they want, then there's a responsibility on the listener to weigh what they hear.
Up to a point. I dont think extremists like the EDL, Muslims against Crusades etc should be allowed to spout there hate and threaten/ indiimidate people.
Its interesting though that the EDL who are so intent on marching through citys chanting "Pakis out" etc (cos its there rights) . Are the first to moan when MAC chant abuse at soldiers . So why is one action right and the other not ? (I dont agree with either action btw).
I do think there are a lot of needless and avoidable problems borne out of 'offence taken' as opposed to given. When someone is being abusive or derogatory or just plain ridiculous in their views, ignorance of them is often IMO far more effective retaliation than biting back and/or getting one's knickers in a twist.
Up to a point. I dont think extremists like the EDL, Muslims against Crusades etc should be allowed to spout there hate and threaten/ indiimidate people.
Its interesting though that the EDL who are so intent on marching through citys chanting "Pakis out" etc (cos its there rights) . Are the first to moan when MAC chant abuse at soldiers . So why is one action right and the other not ? (I dont agree with either action btw).
I agree.
Of course freedom of speech must have its limits, especially in the area of encouraging violence. If a man tried to say in a public forum that it's fine for a husband to rape his wife, I would imagine 95% of people would want his views removed and rightly so.
I definately don't agree with comedy being censored.
Yes and no. I think it's reasonable to have some restrictions on what people do in public - like not being allowed to go up to someone in the street and scream expletives in their face. Similarly, it's reasonable to have rules about sending abusive mail, or harassing people on their facebook wall etc.
I do think people should be able to express opinions though, if other people care to hear them. This includes stuff like being rude or lewd on the internet on your website, or anywhere where others are given fair warning or make a choice to expose themselves to what you have to say. Something like 'Obscene publications', but taking into account the people exposed to the material and any warnings they will see - if something says on it 'this is extremely offensive' in big red writing, then complainers shouldn't be able to have any legal power over it.
I think people should be able to 'deny' the holocaust if they feel like it too. Censoring opinion like this in a way legitimises it, for one thing.
I also think it reasonable to criminalise possession of some media produced by committing illegal acts. Like real rape, sex with underage persons, snuff if it actually existed etc. Proveably or obviously fake stuff should not be illegal.
It's also reasonable to have some kind of laws about terrorism, organised crime etc, but that gets pretty complicated, and if you're not careful peaceful protest might fall under your umbrella of 'terrorism' or something.
Then there's the filesharing thing and I'm a bit confused about that one.
Up to a point. I dont think extremists like the EDL, Muslims against Crusades etc should be allowed to spout there hate and threaten/ indiimidate people.
Its interesting though that the EDL who are so intent on marching through citys chanting "Pakis out" etc (cos its there rights) . Are the first to moan when MAC chant abuse at soldiers . So why is one action right and the other not ? (I dont agree with either action btw).
I was not aware that the EDL chanted such things, but if they did I would have no problem with it being banned, just like I the people in the MAC.
However only banned in certain circumstances. They must certainly have the right to vent their views but I think it okay to restrict the time and the place. So the EDL will be allowed to criticize immigration, but not out side a muslim school at 8:45am as mothers drop the little ones off; the MAC (or whatever they are called now} would be allowed to protest at government policy, but not at a soldiers funeral.
As I have said many times freedom of speech does not allow you to say whatever you like whenever you like. However there must be a mechanism for people to easily spread there views, albeit with restrictions limited in certain circumstances. I'm afraid we have to rely on the government and legislation in determine restrictions, and on "the people" to make sure the authorities are not abusing their power when imposing restrictions. I can see why some people might not like this, but it is far better than having a "anything goes" policy, or more worryingly (and more likely by the day}, total bans such as something that causes "religious offense".
Freedom of speech for those who advocate freedom for everyone except those that don't advocate freedom. But, of course, those that don't advocate freedom for those who don't advocate freedom should be exempt from that rule.
Nonsense, jsmith. I'm with keio Line on this. If you're a firm believer in freedom of speech and are a law-abiding citizen, you will accept that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and restrictions. It does not mean you can say what the hell you want when you want. People have to be protected from defamation etc.
This may be semantics, but we're not really talking about freedom of speech - everyone with a functioning brain and mouth IS free to say whatever they please, and they often do.
What we're really arguing about is which "things people say" should be liable for punishment and (more importantly) who decides?
You are entirely at liberty to shout the most insulting things you can think of in public or elsewhere - just as long as you are prepared to reap the consequences of your actions.
Nonsense, jsmith. I'm with keio Line on this. If you're a firm believer in freedom of speech and are a law-abiding citizen, you will accept that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and restrictions. It does not mean you can say what the hell you want when you want. People have to be protected from defamation etc.
I feel you're thinking about this in a context of society as it is currently. The protection against defamation, etc., lies in the fact that anyone is free to say anything they like. Hence no-one's spoken words carry any more weight than anyone else's.
This would, of course, mean that those standing for election to office would be free to promise anything they want without having any intention of carrying out their promises.
And, of course, the fact that speech is free does not mean that people would be tempted to abuse the fact. What would be the point or thrill in doing what you're perfectly entitled to? There's no law saying we have to drive on the left in the UK; merely a code of practice. So, in theory, anyone can drive on the right so long as they don't cause an accident, and obey all the "keep left" signs. Yet I don't see many doing it, except on one-way streets.
Comments
I
Now that's a dangerous path to start down.
And the problem with that is what? If you don't like or don't believe or disapprove of what people say, then ignore them. Is there still a Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park? Does anyone take any notice of what the people there say?
You just need to be careful what you say against someone who is rich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HRLvfbauA
So are you suggesting that having someone write black c*** on your car is OK and if you don't like it you should just ignore it and shut up?
What does your example have to do with free speech? Are you suggesting that if someone wrote "I like kittens" on your car, that would be fine?
You're talking about criminal damage. That's completely different to someone saying that in the street ... to which I'd merely retort they need their eyes tested, and walk on.
You appear to object to the concept of free speech; what you overlook is that the fact you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
So writing something on my car is not OK because it is criminal damage (you can write something in the dust or frost on a car without actually damaging it by the way), but opening the window and shouting it at me, or passing me in the street and saying it is fine?
You say that curtailing 'free speech' is treading a dangerous path - I would say that allowing 'free speech' to the degree where people can be openly offensive and insulting on the grounds of race, religion, being Polish or whatever is the thin end of a very pernicious wedge indeed. Because once it is officially acceptable to behave in that way (and how else would repealing the current legislation be viewed?), does it not confer a degree of respectability on those views and bring some people that much closer to the idea that if you can say that kind of stuff openly it is because the recipients of the insults are actually inferior and don't deserve better treatment?
No.
Speech must remain within the established principles of law in a democracy.
So in a nutshell, you shoul dhav ethe freedom to say whatever you want, but no-one should be able to exercise their right to free speech and respond?
Either everyone has free speech and can say what they want, or no-one does. Its not an us/them thing.
That remark was in answer to this post, which is talking about a completely different thing:
though I suppose we could split hairs about the meaning of "curtail".
I mustn't be explaining myself very well, because I think you're missing my point completely. Free speech has the exact opposite effect to "confer a degree of respectability" on what someone says, because there's no "if" about "say that kind of stuff openly".
As I've said before, when people can say whatever they want, then there's a responsibility on the listener to weigh what they hear.
Its interesting though that the EDL who are so intent on marching through citys chanting "Pakis out" etc (cos its there rights) . Are the first to moan when MAC chant abuse at soldiers . So why is one action right and the other not ? (I dont agree with either action btw).
I agree.
Of course freedom of speech must have its limits, especially in the area of encouraging violence. If a man tried to say in a public forum that it's fine for a husband to rape his wife, I would imagine 95% of people would want his views removed and rightly so.
I definately don't agree with comedy being censored.
I do think people should be able to express opinions though, if other people care to hear them. This includes stuff like being rude or lewd on the internet on your website, or anywhere where others are given fair warning or make a choice to expose themselves to what you have to say. Something like 'Obscene publications', but taking into account the people exposed to the material and any warnings they will see - if something says on it 'this is extremely offensive' in big red writing, then complainers shouldn't be able to have any legal power over it.
I think people should be able to 'deny' the holocaust if they feel like it too. Censoring opinion like this in a way legitimises it, for one thing.
I also think it reasonable to criminalise possession of some media produced by committing illegal acts. Like real rape, sex with underage persons, snuff if it actually existed etc. Proveably or obviously fake stuff should not be illegal.
It's also reasonable to have some kind of laws about terrorism, organised crime etc, but that gets pretty complicated, and if you're not careful peaceful protest might fall under your umbrella of 'terrorism' or something.
Then there's the filesharing thing and I'm a bit confused about that one.
However only banned in certain circumstances. They must certainly have the right to vent their views but I think it okay to restrict the time and the place. So the EDL will be allowed to criticize immigration, but not out side a muslim school at 8:45am as mothers drop the little ones off; the MAC (or whatever they are called now} would be allowed to protest at government policy, but not at a soldiers funeral.
As I have said many times freedom of speech does not allow you to say whatever you like whenever you like. However there must be a mechanism for people to easily spread there views, albeit with restrictions limited in certain circumstances. I'm afraid we have to rely on the government and legislation in determine restrictions, and on "the people" to make sure the authorities are not abusing their power when imposing restrictions. I can see why some people might not like this, but it is far better than having a "anything goes" policy, or more worryingly (and more likely by the day}, total bans such as something that causes "religious offense".
Would you allow people to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre?
How about shouting "BOMB" on a crowded airliner?
That's a good rule of thumb I think.:)
What we're really arguing about is which "things people say" should be liable for punishment and (more importantly) who decides?
You are entirely at liberty to shout the most insulting things you can think of in public or elsewhere - just as long as you are prepared to reap the consequences of your actions.
I don't agree with them... but i don't agree with keeping people silent either
They spout their hate, and most sane people will draw their own conclusions about them. Let them be forced to defend their own rantings
As with gas build up in the lower intestines... it's better out.. than kept in
When things are out in the open, people know where they stand
To me, that is better than fearful, silent and secretive
Reminds me of a line from Alan Bennett's "Forty Years On", if I remember it correctly:
"Of course children should be spontaneous, provided it's kept strictly under control."
I feel you're thinking about this in a context of society as it is currently. The protection against defamation, etc., lies in the fact that anyone is free to say anything they like. Hence no-one's spoken words carry any more weight than anyone else's.
This would, of course, mean that those standing for election to office would be free to promise anything they want without having any intention of carrying out their promises.
And, of course, the fact that speech is free does not mean that people would be tempted to abuse the fact. What would be the point or thrill in doing what you're perfectly entitled to? There's no law saying we have to drive on the left in the UK; merely a code of practice. So, in theory, anyone can drive on the right so long as they don't cause an accident, and obey all the "keep left" signs. Yet I don't see many doing it, except on one-way streets.