Free Speech.....

[Tumble]

Nail? Hit it right on the head.....

[wasabi]

Unless you're a hipster socialist. in which case violating your freedoms makes the other person a Nazi.

[BobF64]

Just seems to be the way society has, very unfortunately, gone.

Or, at least, the publicly vocal parts of it.

[Saracen]

There is, of course, no such thing as absolute free speech. Even the much-vaunted 1st amendment, while broad and powerful, is not absolute. Newspapers and publishers, print and internet, have (within those limits) a right to publish what they want, but not an obligation to publish what someone else wants. So do communities like this one. We, for instance, have rules, and while membership is offered to everyone, without reference to race, creed, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc, it's contingent on following the rules, and that membership can be suspended, or withdrawn entirely. Some rules are for legal reasons, while others are to create the kind of environment we want. An obvious example is swearing. Personally, in the appropriate circumstances, I'm every bit as likely to let rip with a torrent of ....erm, 'colourful' language as anyone else, but it's not what we're trying to achieve here.

So, free speech? Here, yes but within the rules, and yes, the mod team both determine what they are, and judge when they're being broken, subject to the mandate from the site owner. Do we restrict free speech? No, but we do place limits on it [i]here], as the law does in every country on earth, including the 'land of the free", which by the way, doesn't mean absolute anarchy but, still, is relatively free compared to most, and hugely so compared to many.

It therefore depends on what's meant by 'free speech'.

Should we be free to say what we want, if it hurts or kills others? No, IMHO.

But should we, as a society, be free to express opinions others may, or will, find offensive? Yes. But we should also exercise some restraint and judgement in doing it. Rights and freedoms come with a price, which is and should be responsibilities.

[BobF64]

Should we be free to say what we want, if it hurts or kills others? No, IMHO.

But should we, as a society, be free to express opinions others may, or will, find offensive? Yes. But we should also exercise some restraint and judgement in doing it. Rights and freedoms come with a price, which is and should be responsibilities.

Yes, theres a difference between free speech, for debate or discussion purposes, and trying to incite something.

Sadly, a lot of people seem to think it all falls into the latter category so they can just dismiss it more easily.

Only have to look at the Scottish pro-independence coverage or that fiasco with the Mozilla guy to see the actual trouble makers. Incase you need a hint, its the SNP in the first and its not the guy that quit in the second.

[Zak33]

this

[aidanjt]

...trying to incite something.

I despise this word so much these days. People use 'incitement' as a free pass for their own poor behaviour based on what someone else said. Or worse, to apologise for the behaviour of others. At the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own behaviour regardless of what anyone says to them. And yet this idiocy has even made its way into law.

[wasabi]

I despise this word so much these days. People use 'incitement' as a free pass for their own poor behaviour based on what someone else said. Or worse, to apologise for the behaviour of others. At the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own behaviour regardless of what anyone says to them. And yet this idiocy has even made its way into law.

We don't live in a free society if radical clerics cannot preach what they believe to be true. If someone kills someone else as a result, try them for murder like any other murder.

And we don't live in a true democracy if the BNP cannot clearly articulate their viewpoint without falling foul of the law. How is it a democracy if some choices are off the table?

[Splash]

We don't live in a free society if radical clerics cannot preach what they believe to be true. If someone kills someone else as a result, try them for murder like any other murder.

And we don't live in a true democracy if the BNP cannot clearly articulate their viewpoint without falling foul of the law. How is it a democracy if some choices are off the table?

I wasn't aware that they'd fallen foul of the law? I just thought that they were unable to articulate their viewpoint without looking like racist eejits. I'm a great believer in the idea of giving someone who you disagree vehemently with enough rope.

[wasabi]

I wasn't aware that they'd fallen foul of the law? I just thought that they were unable to articulate their viewpoint without looking like racist eejits. I'm a great believer in the idea of giving someone who you disagree vehemently with enough rope.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...therparties.uk

[Splash]

My point exactly: his statement (10 years ago) that "aspects of that faith" (the faith being Islam) "are wicked" shows (to me, anyways) that he was either looking for column inches or ignorant. Because some people take the word of the Koran (as that kind of people will do with any form of religious text, incidentally) and twist them to their own needs doesn't necessarily mean that the faith is the cause. I don't believe he was charged for this, in which case how exactly has he fallen foul of the law?

Incidentally the BNP response to this

A BNP spokesman today said that Mr Griffin's arrest was "an attack on freedom of speech".

Pretty much what the OP was talking about, right?


And as I said, that was 10 years ago. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the BNP was largely an irrelevance these days, with UKIP taking the majority of their votes?

[wasabi]

My point exactly: his statement (10 years ago) that "aspects of that faith" (the faith being Islam) "are wicked" shows (to me, anyways) that he was either looking for column inches or ignorant. Because some people take the word of the Koran (as that kind of people will do with any form of religious text, incidentally) and twist them to their own needs doesn't necessarily mean that the faith is the cause. I don't believe he was charged for this, in which case how exactly has he fallen foul of the law?

Incidentally the BNP response to this



Pretty much what the OP was talking about, right?


And as I said, that was 10 years ago. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the BNP was largely an irrelevance these days, with UKIP taking the majority of their votes?

He may not have been charged, but getting tugged by the police is pretty darned close and a clear threat. And there is of course the issue that he legally cannot say some stuff that his party may well stand for. Again, how is it a democracy if the Labour party got to decide that some topics are not allowed to be discussed by other politicans? Whether you like his views, or if they're ever going to win an election is not the point, the fact that democracy has been permanently eroded is.

[Macadee]

Slightly ironic that the free speech OP is censored

[g8ina]

Free speech ? Yes. Swearing in a family oriented forum ? No

[peterb]

We don't live in a free society if radical clerics cannot preach what they believe to be true. If someone kills someone else as a result, try them for murder like any other murder.

Which is scant consolation to the murder victim (although they won't care much) or any family. But you could extend that principle to leaving your car or house unlocked on the grounds that if you are burgled then just try the perpetrator for theft. I would suggest that prevention is better than cure in this instance.

we don't live in a true democracy if the BNP cannot clearly articulate their viewpoint without falling foul of the law. How is it a democracy if some choices are off the table?

It depends what you mean by a "true" democracy. in literal terms it means rule by the people, however unless every decision is taken by a plebiscite, that rule is devolved to a government, elected by the electorate. But an electorate may not be truly representative. The membership of the electorate in the UK has changed from originally being restricted to male landowners to now include pretty much universal suffrage - provided you are aged over 18. And that is a relatively recent development, the voting age was only reduced from 21 years to 18 years in 1970.

As for the BNP, it can articulate (well in theory depending on how articulate their spokesmen are) their viewpoint within the legal framework.

But we live in a social framework, and that brings benefits to the individual. However, there is a tradeoff in that we lose some freedoms, and become subject to a rule of law, but that rule of law grants other freedoms and protection. We don't live in isolated bubbles, where each person is solely responsible for themselves, we live in a social environment where the benefits generally outweigh the drawbacks.

[wasabi]

It depends what you mean by a "true" democracy. in literal terms it means rule by the people, however unless every decision is taken by a plebiscite, that rule is devolved to a government, elected by the electorate. But an electorate may not be truly representative. The membership of the electorate in the UK has changed from originally being restricted to male landowners to now include pretty much universal suffrage - provided you are aged over 18. And that is a relatively recent development, the voting age was only reduced from 21 years to 18 years in 1970.

As for the BNP, it can articulate (well in theory depending on how articulate their spokesmen are) their viewpoint within the legal framework.

But we live in a social framework, and that brings benefits to the individual. However, there is a tradeoff in that we lose some freedoms, and become subject to a rule of law, but that rule of law grants other freedoms and protection. We don't live in isolated bubbles, where each person is solely responsible for themselves, we live in a social environment where the benefits generally outweigh the drawbacks.

However somewhat like gerrymandering, first past the post electoral system or the 'big 3' pre-election debate, the rules protect the established parties. Laws are not in themselves right, they are just the expression of the will of those in power.