Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[Saracen]

The Judiciary is a branch of Government.

Again, everything is permissible, except that which is restricted. Government doesn't allow things, they ban things. For something to be banned, it needs to be in the public interest to do so. It doesn't matter if those things are of interest to the public or not. It doesn't matter if a trial is, or isn't newsworthy, or who's decision that is. A compelling case needs to be made for government to be able to restrict freedom of speech, and based on the evidence of other countries without such restrictions, that ban is not supported.

And different countries have different systens of government, with different degrees of independence of judiciary from executive or for that matter, judiciary from legislative. For instance, we don't have judges, or police officials, that are elected, or for that matter, supreme court justices that are selected by the head of the executive branch.

To be honest, what "evidence shows" does or doesn't allegedly work elsewhere doesn't much matter, when the structure of government is different.

[Ttaskmaster]

However, the point of freedom of speech is that it is the unpopular speech that requires the most protection.

How so?
There's usually a good reason it's unpopular, typically because it's complete BS from ranty malcontents stirring things up with hate speech and the like.
But that aside, it's the fact that people will believe it if you say it often enough and loud enough. That's why even people proven utterly innocent still never live down certain charges.

To be honest, what "evidence shows" does or doesn't allegedly work elsewhere doesn't much matter, when the structure of government is different.

Or the culture - I think it was a new system of fines based on weekly income or something, that we imported the idea of from Norway? Well in [whichever country it was] the vast majority of people are open and honest about their tax returns, whereas over here you just hide and fail to declare X amount, and that's you with a much lighter sentence... because the public mentality is so different, making it a bad idea to try and implement.

[peterb]

The Judiciary is a branch of Government.

It is - but not a branch of the Government. (UK) Government ministers do not make judicial decisions (except under very rare circumstances - and those circumstances are open to challenge and the Judiciary make their decisions impartially as those decisions are open to subsequent further judicial scrutiny via the appeal system.

[TeePee]

How so?
There's usually a good reason it's unpopular, typically because it's complete BS from ranty malcontents stirring things up with hate speech and the like.
But that aside, it's the fact that people will believe it if you say it often enough and loud enough. That's why even people proven utterly innocent still never live down certain charges.

Because popular speech, by definition, requires no protection.

I agree that most of it is BS, but part of that is the modern and enlightened culture we live in today. That culture is a product of civil rights laws, from the suffragette movement to the more recent passing of same-sex marriage legislation, and those laws usually originated from unpopular movements and unpopular demonstrations.

[Ttaskmaster]

Because popular speech, by definition, requires no protection.

Both require considerable oversight.
Quite a few dictators have taken power through popularity, while the voices of sense and reason were conversely boring at best and unpopular at worst.
Save money, stop borowing more than you could possibly hope to repay? Nah, stuff that you unpopular sensible person....!!

I agree that most of it is BS, but part of that is the modern and enlightened culture we live in today. That culture is a product of civil rights laws, from the suffragette movement to the more recent passing of same-sex marriage legislation, and those laws usually originated from unpopular movements and unpopular demonstrations.

Equally, there have been incidents that didn't end up with such enlightened, liberal attitudes...
You can't just let people go round saying what they want - There'd be murder in the streets, and we'd end up having to allow everyone concealed gun carry, or something!!

[TeePee]

Both require considerable oversight.
Quite a few dictators have taken power through popularity, while the voices of sense and reason were conversely boring at best and unpopular at worst.
Save money, stop borowing more than you could possibly hope to repay? Nah, stuff that you unpopular sensible person....!!


Equally, there have been incidents that didn't end up with such enlightened, liberal attitudes...
You can't just let people go round saying what they want - There'd be murder in the streets, and we'd end up having to allow everyone concealed gun carry, or something!!

More freedom is good.

[Ttaskmaster]

More freedom is good.

People consistently prove that they cannot be trusted with their own freedom.

[TeePee]

People consistently prove that they cannot be trusted with their own freedom.

[Saracen]

More freedom is good.

Up to a point. But what point? Ultimately, that way lies the law of the jungle, might is right. Not the sort of society I want to live in.

[peterb]

More freedom is good.

Or if the granting of freedom to one set of people infringes the freedom of others.

A gay group (for example) may want to live free from harassment and leave peacefully. Is that freedom being infringed by the freedom of an anti gay movement to harass them and prevent them from living peacefully?

(Substitute any other minority group of your choice)

[TeePee]

No, because freedom which infringes on the freedom of others is less freedom. Harassment is not freedom of speech, for this reason, and the same goes for libel, slander, etc. This is what prevents the law of the jungle in what is, of course, and idealised world view.

[Ttaskmaster]

No, because freedom which infringes on the freedom of others is less freedom.

Unless pandering to the freedoms of the minorities, in which case infringing upon the freedoms of the majorities doesn't count...

Harassment is not freedom of speech, for this reason, and the same goes for libel, slander, etc.

And that 'etc' is mostly what media bans and similar are there to prevent. Far easier (and potentially fairer) to just ban everyone, than merely list the various undesireables and trouble-makers you don't want getting involved.

[SeriousSam]

Unless pandering to the freedoms of the minorities, in which case infringing upon the freedoms of the majorities doesn't count...

Are you suggesting that they should get preferential treatment?

[peterb]

Are you suggesting that they should get preferential treatment?

I think the suggestion was that ‘Freedom’ is a balancing act and that Granting Freedom’ to one group or to one aspect of life might restrict freedoms of another group or another aspect of life.

Even if you lived alone on a desert island when you might think you are free to do what you like, you aren’t really - you lose the freedom to socialise and interact with other people.

If you lived with a group of other people, you lose the freedom to do whatever you like because whatever you do could impact on the way other people want to behave.

[Saracen]

I think the suggestion was that ‘Freedom’ is a balancing act and that Granting Freedom’ to one group or to one aspect of life might restrict freedoms of another group or another aspect of life.

Even if you lived alone on a desert island when you might think you are free to do what you like, you aren’t really - you lose the freedom to socialise and interact with other people.

If you lived with a group of other people, you lose the freedom to do whatever you like because whatever you do could impact on the way other people want to behave.

And, that's pretty much full circle. Judge-imposed press bans are about the right of an accused in court taking precedence for now over the right of the press to publish whatever they want, whenever they want. Which, by the way, they do not and never have had, anywhere on the planet. Even the "land of the free" is only free up to a point.

[Ttaskmaster]

Are you suggesting that they should get preferential treatment?

Kinda the opposite, actually - They get treated just like everyone else.

And, that's pretty much full circle. Judge-imposed press bans are about the right of an accused in court taking precedence for now over the right of the press to publish whatever they want, whenever they want.

More about the right of The Law to be applied without prejudice or influence. The accused generally has their rights severely restricted whilst under accusation.