Everyone has freedom of speech. It just the effects and consequences that are under debate. Otherwise anti-Semitic Twitter trolls and poppy burners wouldn't be sent to jail. Unless what you mean is no consequences for people who express offensive views about subjects that aren't your 'thing'.
Free speech, anyone?
2 of 2
Originally Posted by Jim_McIntosh:
“We don't have absolute free speech, never have within a lawful society, never will....and that's a good thing.
We have "freedom" of speech within the law. i.e. Say what you want but if it's illegal then you'll likely face legal repercussions.
And in BB they also have their own rules which if broken might result in a contestant being removed. It's the same principle as your workplace possibly having it's own set of rules too (in addition to the laws of the land).”
“We don't have absolute free speech, never have within a lawful society, never will....and that's a good thing.
We have "freedom" of speech within the law. i.e. Say what you want but if it's illegal then you'll likely face legal repercussions.
And in BB they also have their own rules which if broken might result in a contestant being removed. It's the same principle as your workplace possibly having it's own set of rules too (in addition to the laws of the land).”
This ^
Freedom of speech does not not mean freedom from criticism.
Anyway it's not a free speech issue. Channel 5 will have had rules and Ken would have signed a contract. Try using the language Ken used in your work place and see how long you last.
Freedom of speech doesn't, and never has allowed people to say things that the law considers offensive.
Nothing lefty about that.
In my experience bring "PC" is just being polite.
Nothing lefty about that.
In my experience bring "PC" is just being polite.
Originally Posted by Matt_Maher:
“Most liberals are all for free speech....as long as it's something they agree with.”
“Most liberals are all for free speech....as long as it's something they agree with.”
Nonsense. That's a lazy and ill thought out assertion.
In the words of Voltaire; I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
The notion of words existing which cannot be written or said is ... surreal.
The notion that some people can tell other people which words they can't write or say is ... troubling.
I understand fully the reasons and the history, but nonetheless ^these two statements stand.
The notion that some people can tell other people which words they can't write or say is ... troubling.
I understand fully the reasons and the history, but nonetheless ^these two statements stand.
Words can be used as weapons of oppression, on a grand scale or an personal one. People can use words to rob others of their autonomy and to create fear.
I don't have a problem with their being a consensus on what is acceptable between reasonable people, backed up by the rule of law. Anyone who does have a problem with that is most likely an unreasonable person who would like to be able to oppress others with their words and not be called to account for it. A bully, in other words.
I don't have a problem with their being a consensus on what is acceptable between reasonable people, backed up by the rule of law. Anyone who does have a problem with that is most likely an unreasonable person who would like to be able to oppress others with their words and not be called to account for it. A bully, in other words.
Originally Posted by danyell:
“Freedom of speech? Really? Didn't think there was such a thing nowadays. Roll eyes.”
“Freedom of speech? Really? Didn't think there was such a thing nowadays. Roll eyes.”
There isnt, its all too pc...madness in this country now.
Originally Posted by sheils1:
“There isnt, its all too pc...madness in this country now.”
“There isnt, its all too pc...madness in this country now.
”
You'd be okay with anyone saying anything about you whatsoever in any context, in public print or media, and you wouldn't want that person dealt with by police?
* So no libel or slander laws.
* People can use any words in any environment - bigotry in Belfast, racism in Bradford, Westboro Church style picketing of gay soldiers funerals.
* People on social media accusing people of rape, murder and paedophilia without any proof.
* People sending threats to rape a person or kill them under the anonymity of the internet.
* People shouting "bomb" in airports and "fire" in football stadiums without a thought to how this might threaten public safety.
* People making crank calls to police helplines when are trying to track down dangerous killers and derailing investigations.
You'd be quite happy to let any of these expressions pass without prosecution?
There are lots of things people might say in different scenarios which they will be prosecuted for and a lot of it is to do with public safety and not inciting people and causing disorder. These are needed for good reason. Therefore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech (in the sense of being able to say something without facing legal consequences - i.e. being "free" to do so).
When people argue for freedom of speech as an absolute they tend to only think of it as it applies to them and the area in which they think they are being suppressed. Go through each of the above and honestly tell me that it would be better for anyone doing this not to be prosecuted - from the larger perspective of society as a whole.
Originally Posted by Jim_McIntosh:
“You'd be okay with anyone saying anything about you whatsoever in any context, in public print or media, and you wouldn't want that person dealt with by police?
* So no libel or slander laws.
* People can use any words in any environment - bigotry in Belfast, racism in Bradford, Westboro Church style picketing of gay soldiers funerals.
* People on social media accusing people of rape, murder and paedophilia without any proof.
* People sending threats to rape a person or kill them under the anonymity of the internet.
* People shouting "bomb" in airports and "fire" in football stadiums without a thought to how this might threaten public safety.
* People making crank calls to police helplines when are trying to track down dangerous killers and derailing investigations.
You'd be quite happy to let any of these expressions pass without prosecution?
There are lots of things people might say in different scenarios which they will be prosecuted for and a lot of it is to do with public safety and not inciting people and causing disorder. These are needed for good reason. Therefore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech (in the sense of being able to say something without facing legal consequences - i.e. being "free" to do so).
When people argue for freedom of speech as an absolute they tend to only think of it as it applies to them and the area in which they think they are being suppressed. Go through each of the above and honestly tell me that it would be better for anyone doing this not to be prosecuted - from the larger perspective of society as a whole.”
“You'd be okay with anyone saying anything about you whatsoever in any context, in public print or media, and you wouldn't want that person dealt with by police?
* So no libel or slander laws.
* People can use any words in any environment - bigotry in Belfast, racism in Bradford, Westboro Church style picketing of gay soldiers funerals.
* People on social media accusing people of rape, murder and paedophilia without any proof.
* People sending threats to rape a person or kill them under the anonymity of the internet.
* People shouting "bomb" in airports and "fire" in football stadiums without a thought to how this might threaten public safety.
* People making crank calls to police helplines when are trying to track down dangerous killers and derailing investigations.
You'd be quite happy to let any of these expressions pass without prosecution?
There are lots of things people might say in different scenarios which they will be prosecuted for and a lot of it is to do with public safety and not inciting people and causing disorder. These are needed for good reason. Therefore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech (in the sense of being able to say something without facing legal consequences - i.e. being "free" to do so).
When people argue for freedom of speech as an absolute they tend to only think of it as it applies to them and the area in which they think they are being suppressed. Go through each of the above and honestly tell me that it would be better for anyone doing this not to be prosecuted - from the larger perspective of society as a whole.”
Excellent and articulate post, Jim. It is a bright spot in what has become a really unpleasant place to post. I am an eternal optimist and keep thinking that perhaps I can read a thread and not find it filled with vitriol, intolerance and just downright rudeness in many cases.
Originally Posted by Jim_McIntosh:
“You'd be okay with anyone saying anything about you whatsoever in any context, in public print or media, and you wouldn't want that person dealt with by police?
* So no libel or slander laws.
* People can use any words in any environment - bigotry in Belfast, racism in Bradford, Westboro Church style picketing of gay soldiers funerals.
* People on social media accusing people of rape, murder and paedophilia without any proof.
* People sending threats to rape a person or kill them under the anonymity of the internet.
* People shouting "bomb" in airports and "fire" in football stadiums without a thought to how this might threaten public safety.
* People making crank calls to police helplines when are trying to track down dangerous killers and derailing investigations.
You'd be quite happy to let any of these expressions pass without prosecution?
There are lots of things people might say in different scenarios which they will be prosecuted for and a lot of it is to do with public safety and not inciting people and causing disorder. These are needed for good reason. Therefore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech (in the sense of being able to say something without facing legal consequences - i.e. being "free" to do so).
When people argue for freedom of speech as an absolute they tend to only think of it as it applies to them and the area in which they think they are being suppressed. Go through each of the above and honestly tell me that it would be better for anyone doing this not to be prosecuted - from the larger perspective of society as a whole.”
“You'd be okay with anyone saying anything about you whatsoever in any context, in public print or media, and you wouldn't want that person dealt with by police?
* So no libel or slander laws.
* People can use any words in any environment - bigotry in Belfast, racism in Bradford, Westboro Church style picketing of gay soldiers funerals.
* People on social media accusing people of rape, murder and paedophilia without any proof.
* People sending threats to rape a person or kill them under the anonymity of the internet.
* People shouting "bomb" in airports and "fire" in football stadiums without a thought to how this might threaten public safety.
* People making crank calls to police helplines when are trying to track down dangerous killers and derailing investigations.
You'd be quite happy to let any of these expressions pass without prosecution?
There are lots of things people might say in different scenarios which they will be prosecuted for and a lot of it is to do with public safety and not inciting people and causing disorder. These are needed for good reason. Therefore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech (in the sense of being able to say something without facing legal consequences - i.e. being "free" to do so).
When people argue for freedom of speech as an absolute they tend to only think of it as it applies to them and the area in which they think they are being suppressed. Go through each of the above and honestly tell me that it would be better for anyone doing this not to be prosecuted - from the larger perspective of society as a whole.”
Spot on Jim
It's always been free speech "within the law"
2 of 2
