Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[philehidiot]

I think the people on this forum tend to really think and consider things before posting and so I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.

I recently faced off against a Holocaust denier on Facebook. He was denying it happened because when he went on social media and asked for the maths behind the 6 million Jewish people who were killed no one could do it. So I utterly annihilated him with facts, figures, primary sources and so on. I also cautioned him in that he had his work associated with his Farcebook profile and I was concerned that if I went around spouting views like that I'd put my job at risk. I do not want anyone to lose their / their family's income due to their views and I've seen people's lives destroyed for less.

My opinion on this sort of thing is let it out so it can be contested in open debate in public forums. I feel that if you supress people's right to told different ideas (no matter how abhorrent they may seem - this guy didn't express any anti-Semitic views, just questioned the Holocaust due to the figures apparently not adding up to 6 million. Obviously I corrected this. He asked for a list of camps where Jews were killed, I gave him 1,600+ names and then added up the top 5 and got to around 3 million, then told him he could do the rest of the work himself but if 3 million isn't enough for a genocide then he's beyond help..) then you are the ones refusing to make the argument. This just pushes those actually making an argument you disagree with underground and does not open it up to being countered, thus those believing in the suppressed views end up in an echo chamber with no one correcting them. This is a flaw with Holocaust denial laws in Europe. There was a chap who denied the Holocaust happened in a book and went to prison. He ended up back in court and a proper historian utterly destroyed his ideas. We saw the same when the BNP leader Nick Griffin got on Question Time… there were loads of people saying he shouldn’t be given a platform but what happened? He was exposed to open debate in public and the support for the party and him collapsed.

What do people think? Should you not be allowed to question things where you see inconsistencies like this guy did? The numbers from the Holocaust are going to be rough as people were turned into ash, killed in many different ways and the remains hidden everywhere so you can't just count the bodies. He is easily corrected but ONLY if the subject is open to discussion. If we had caught him earlier it might have been easier to change his mind but instead it was a full on evidence based battle with him going merely silent at the end. Should some topics be off limits to challenge or should we be free to say what we like about anything as long as we're not inciting violence? There’s a move to ban everything outside the Overton Window with Alex Jones being banned from multiple platforms in what appears to be a coordinated effort. Just because he’s quite mad doesn’t mean we have the right to silence him, right? How can people challenge his ideas when he has now been confined to his own website and apps where people can’t put up videos proving him wrong? His app is the 4th most popular on Google Play (but unless you search correctly you don’t see that…. How do you feed a conspiracy theorist and legitimise him? That’s right, by doing exactly what they did!) so they haven’t supressed him, they’ve just moved him into an environment he controls.

This has turned into a longer post than I intended but I’d be interested to hear views on this ramble.

[badass]

I think the people on this forum tend to really think and consider things before posting and so I'd be interested to hear opinions on this.

I recently faced off against a Holocaust denier on Facebook. He was denying it happened because when he went on social media and asked for the maths behind the 6 million Jewish people who were killed no one could do it. So I utterly annihilated him with facts, figures, primary sources and so on. I also cautioned him in that he had his work associated with his Farcebook profile and I was concerned that if I went around spouting views like that I'd put my job at risk. I do not want anyone to lose their / their family's income due to their views and I've seen people's lives destroyed for less.

My opinion on this sort of thing is let it out so it can be contested in open debate in public forums. I feel that if you supress people's right to told different ideas (no matter how abhorrent they may seem - this guy didn't express any anti-Semitic views, just questioned the Holocaust due to the figures apparently not adding up to 6 million. Obviously I corrected this. He asked for a list of camps where Jews were killed, I gave him 1,600+ names and then added up the top 5 and got to around 3 million, then told him he could do the rest of the work himself but if 3 million isn't enough for a genocide then he's beyond help..) then you are the ones refusing to make the argument. This just pushes those actually making an argument you disagree with underground and does not open it up to being countered, thus those believing in the suppressed views end up in an echo chamber with no one correcting them. This is a flaw with Holocaust denial laws in Europe. There was a chap who denied the Holocaust happened in a book and went to prison. He ended up back in court and a proper historian utterly destroyed his ideas. We saw the same when the BNP leader Nick Griffin got on Question Time… there were loads of people saying he shouldn’t be given a platform but what happened? He was exposed to open debate in public and the support for the party and him collapsed.

What do people think? Should you not be allowed to question things where you see inconsistencies like this guy did? The numbers from the Holocaust are going to be rough as people were turned into ash, killed in many different ways and the remains hidden everywhere so you can't just count the bodies. He is easily corrected but ONLY if the subject is open to discussion. If we had caught him earlier it might have been easier to change his mind but instead it was a full on evidence based battle with him going merely silent at the end. Should some topics be off limits to challenge or should we be free to say what we like about anything as long as we're not inciting violence? There’s a move to ban everything outside the Overton Window with Alex Jones being banned from multiple platforms in what appears to be a coordinated effort. Just because he’s quite mad doesn’t mean we have the right to silence him, right? How can people challenge his ideas when he has now been confined to his own website and apps where people can’t put up videos proving him wrong? His app is the 4th most popular on Google Play (but unless you search correctly you don’t see that…. How do you feed a conspiracy theorist and legitimise him? That’s right, by doing exactly what they did!) so they haven’t supressed him, they’ve just moved him into an environment he controls.

This has turned into a longer post than I intended but I’d be interested to hear views on this ramble.

If you wish to live in a relatively free society then prepare to have to occasionally endure the ravings of lunatics. However from a practical point of view, any form of logical discussion with nutters like holocaust deniers is a complete waste of time. Their minds were made up long ago and no mount of evidence will change their minds.

[ik9000]

If you wish to live in a relatively free society then prepare to have to occasionally endure the ravings of lunatics. However from a practical point of view, any form of logical discussion with nutters like holocaust deniers is a complete waste of time. Their minds were made up long ago and no mount of evidence will change their minds.

there are the rational but misguided/ill informed who are willing to learn, and genuinely seeking facts - a bit like what this chap might have been if he genuinely wanted to know the facts. Then there are the obstinate dumb-ass types who won't accept any form of reason if it doesn't suit their own agenda. They litter the internet (and world) like a bad rash and are just as persistent. We've had a few on here recently though they seem to have thankfully moved on, or at least become less prevalent in the daily feeds. Either way, better to have a society with free speech where people can properly air their views - whatever they may be. Stirring up hatred for hatred sake needs controlling, but it should not and must not get to the point where noone can say anything for fear of upsetting someone. Therein madness lies. As Stephen Fry recently said, "oh you find that offensive? So F'ing what? Why is that my problem?" And in a way he's right. If it's not said to deliberately upset/belittle/provoke then so what? Tolerance is about accepting others have different points of view, and getting on with life regardless, not trying to pretend we're all one big happy family who all agree on everything. It doesn't even work like that (the latter) in a marriage - how the heck can people expect it to work like that in society at large? They're as naive IMO as any holocaust denier/flat earther and the like.

[TeePee]

Free Speech generally means freedom from government action in response to speech.

Should you state an opinion, you should be free from imprisonment, or government action as a consequence. However, that doesn't mean you are free from other consequences. For example, your employer should be able to take action should they find your opinions objectionable, or you could be banned from this forum as a private entity.

There are a couple of examples of free speech in the US where people are claiming a lot of things. Sportsgame players have been refusing to stand, or have been kneeling during the National Anthem, and the association has been threatening to ban them from games. This is a perfect example of a private entity taking their chosen action that blocks free speech. Another example that has made the news recently is involves a content creator allegedly having been banned from an online service because of the content. Again, the online service is a private entity that can make their own rules.

A year after the events in Charlottesville, it should be noted that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from disagreement. But it does mean that you should be free from being physically attacked because of the viewpoints which you hold.

[ik9000]

to a degree. But if it doesn't affect your work or your company, even then I think your employer shouldn't be able to just get crappy because they didn't like a facebook post. That said things are slightly different this side of the pond - in our favour SFAIK.

[TeePee]

to a degree. But if it doesn't affect your work or your company, even then I think your employer shouldn't be able to just get crappy because they didn't like a facebook post. That said things are slightly different this side of the pond - in our favour SFAIK.

Some things are better, certainly you have much better employment protections. But I do disagree with reporting bans in general, to include the recent ban on reporting about the imprisonment of that nasty little racist.

[ik9000]

Some things are better, certainly you have much better employment protections. But I do disagree with reporting bans in general, to include the recent ban on reporting about the imprisonment of that nasty little racist.

have i missed something? not been following the news that much the past few weeks.

[TeePee]

have i missed something? not been following the news that much the past few weeks.

I'm referring to 'Tommy Robinson'. He was convicted of Contempt of Court for reporting about an ongoing trial in breech of a Court Order banning such reporting.

I am, of course, utterly opposed to his racist opinions, but he should be free to state them. (But not, of course, should he reach the point of slander, which would be a separate matter).

[Saracen]

I'm referring to 'Tommy Robinson'. He was convicted of Contempt of Court for reporting about an ongoing trial in breech of a Court Order banning such reporting.

I am, of course, utterly opposed to his racist opinions, but he should be free to state them. (But not, of course, should he reach the point of slander, which would be a separate matter).

There is, of course, a difference between "stating his opinions" and ignoring a court order that he he either did, or shoukd have, known about. There are few quicker ways of ending up behind bars than defying a court order, especially when doing so might prejudice a trial. Frankly, if he did indeed do that, and by all accounts, twice, then he deserved to be jailed.

The broader question is free speech. There is, of course, no such thing, anywhere on earth. The only issue is where the line is drawn between what is, and what is not, permitted.

Where that line is, or rather lines are, varies. Here (UK, and HEXUS forum) there are two sets of lines - UK law, and forum standands and rules).

UK laws are complex, but certainly include inciitement to various forms od criminal act, defamation, contempt of coyrt and so on. Try publishing a book detailing how to build a bomb, and see how free you speech is.

As for these forums, I can't think of any subject that we won't allow, provided it's within the law, but we certainly do impose limits on how it's discussed, with the obvious lines being "no swearing", and no insulting other members. This is, of course, a privately owned (and paid for) site, and I guess the guy that pays the bills feels entitled to impose some limits.

Does that impede free speech? Yes, and no. You are all free, as far as we're concerned, to express whatever opinions you wish in whatever way you wish ..... elsewhere. While here, well .... our house, our rules.

In general, and not on HEXUS, I'd say that freedom of speech means you're free to express any view within the limits of the law, EVEN IF it causes offence. There is no protection in law agaibst holding or expressing a view that someone, somewhere, might be offended by.

Whether you SHOULD express such opinions is another matter. Personally, I feel that I won't express a view or opinion I think someone would be offended by, unless I consider it sufficiently important to do so that I'm willing to risk someone being offended.

But it's worth remembering that there are people and organisations that deliberately cause offence in order to make a point, promote a cause or even to make a few bucks. And while I might find such sites reprehensible, offensive and uncultured, they still have the right to have their say. They don't have the right to insist that social media platforms have to host their drivel IF said drivel breaks site rules .... any more than we would tolerate such rule-breaking here.

[peterb]

As Voltaire put it (sort of) “I might not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the hilt your right to say it”.

Just to add to Saracens post (with regard to HEXUS) we do bear in mind UK legislation as far as we understand it (we are not lawyers!) and will err on the side of caution if anyone posts something that may cause HEXUS or an individual to fall foul of UK law. It is our (usually collective) judgement when we do this.

[wazzickle]

People having an opinion like this one, and then changing it based on new facts, is incredibly rare, so rare that I would expect this guy is still going round saying the same thing. That's the nature of the human brain. Debating things with bigots is close to pointless. If anything, airing repulsive views legitimises them and allows them to spread. See: flat earthers on morning tv, etc etc. As a journalist, if one person says it's raining outside, and one person says it's dry, your job is not to pit them together in a dramatic tv debate, it's to look outside the damned window. The same should be said for the rest of us.

Free speech is a commonly-misunderstood principle. Some principles rub up against each other, and we need to prioritise them. First of all, no-one, not even in America, has complete, unfettered free speech in law. 'My right to swing my fists ends where your jaw begins'. I should have the right to go around without being abused on the basis of my sexuality, race, gender or religion (funnily enough, as a straight white man, I get to exercise that right daily). That right should trump your right to abuse me for said things; even if we invoke the rule of 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me', it doesn't take much extrapolation in either logic or statistics to see that rises in hate speech directly lead to (note: do not correlate with, but lead to) violence. The basic job of the government, before anything else, should be to protect its citizens, whether from foreign invaders, or from its own citizens. Thus a small amount of legislation to punish those who spout noxious lies, for example, or insults, or specific incitements to violence, etc etc, should be necessary. In the age of Jo Cox, it stuns me we don't support this.

The concept of free speech refers mostly to political ideas. I.E. in the 20s communists were getting rounded up and sent to prison. Even socialists in McCarthy-era America were jailed. The world over, political dissidents are murdered or sent to jail simply for opposing their oppressive regime. We don't live in an oppressive regime and people that believe the Holocaust didn't happen are not political dissidents, nor is Yaxley-Lennon a political hero for going up against the establishment. People get jailed in this country not for exercising their right to free speech or free assembly - i.e. to criticise the government, or hold a rally - but sometimes for verbally assaulting people based on their identity and nothing else. The rest of the time, when people lose their jobs, or get hounded on social media, that is the court of public opinion, a vital if unruly layer of social enforcement to the norms by which we live. Not giving someone a platform on which to spout filth and bile is not an impingement on their rights, but rather saying that there's no reason this person deserves to be heard over and above the other 60 million people living in this country who don't get the chance to speak their mind on a global platform.

[Unique]

i don't get the holocaust deniar thing at all. why would someone be so concerned about something that happened decades ago and deny it because "figures don't add up". what is going on in those peoples lives to which they don't have much else better to do than worry about something long in the past. i'm burning the candle at both ends with work being too busy and not getting enough time off, and then too many people to see and things to do in the "free" downtime i have. when i did have less work (still full time work) and a bit more free time and less people wanting my time socially, i'd have plenty of things to do that were better than worrying about things in the past that you can't change. so asides from holocaust denying, it seems a sign something isn't right in that persons live. wasting time posting on FB for a start is a sign, even if people are out and about socialising in bars and clubs and still posting and checking online instead of enjoying the moment, or perhaps they aren't and are bored so looking for a pina cola escape

as for freedom of speech, legally it doesn't exist in the uk, usa, europe etc to stop hate speech primarily. i wonder how long supporters of full free speech would stick with their views if they were daily abused face to face and online and through the post and media by most people they came across. i know i would get tired easily if people had the legal right to say or post anything anywhere, as imagine the state of online forums and websites if idiots were free to post any nonsense they wanted and it couldn't be edited or removed

i think within reason people should be able to hold whatever ideas they want, but they shouldn't necessarily be free to promote it if it's hateful. sometimes it's just better to keep your thoughts to yourself

[Saracen]

..... As a journalist, if one person says it's raining outside, and one person says it's dry, your job is not to pit them together in a dramatic tv debate, it's to look outside the damned window. The same should be said for the rest of us.

....

As a youth of about 15, preparing to go out to meet ftiends, I called out to my parents "Is it raining outside?".

Dad, in the kitchen (back of house) washing up, yelled back "No".

Mum, in the lounge (front of house) watching TV, yelled back "Yes".

I investigated, as any nascent journalist would, and discovered they were both correct.

Well, a raincloud has to stop somewhere right? That day, it stopped right smack-bang above our house. And when I aay it was raining, I don't mean a few spots pr a light drizzle, but an honsst-to-<insert choice of deity here> torrential downpour. The kind of rain that would soak you to the skin in about 10 seconds.

I learnt a couple of journalistic lessons that day. One - get multiple sources. Second, check, recheck and check yet sgain. Third, it is perfectly possible for good, honest people to hold diametrically opposing views and both be right. Fourth, it is important, and sometimes critically so, to check context.


Oh, and by the way, my view of a journalist's job depends on the type of journalism. For a reporter, I entirely agree that the job is to research a story, get opposing views, check carefully what you're told and understand your sources and their motivation, and then to present a balanced presentation of both (or multiple) sides and to do so in context. The trouble is, to do that inevitably involves at least some (and probably a lot) or editing, deciding what to repeat, how to present it, and so forth.

The objective is, or should be, to present sufficient verified information in a neutral, balanced way, to allow those that can't "look outside the window" for themselves to understand the story. Doing that well is a true talent, and one so often sadly missing these days.

[philehidiot]

Has been interesting hearing your thoughts. Sorry I've not engaged, I've been ill today and yesterday.

I personally think free speech from a legal perspective ends only when you try and incite violence. Beyond that if you feel you need to say contentious things, you accept the social consequences (see: Tommy Robinson) but that doesn't mean you can expect to receive threats of violence towards you. People challenging you, disliking you, disassociating themselves, etc are all fine but the line should be drawn at violence. If someone is saying something that offends you - so what? I get offended quite regularly but it's not an issue. If I go out insulting people or saying silly things like the Holocaust didn't happen then I should expect that I'll pay a price in terms of ridicule and societal rejection. This is not a legal matter for me.

As for the Tommy Robinson case - well, this is a mess. I will start with the fact that I do not know if he was guilt of an offence or not and I want this to be discovered. He was originally arrested under "breach of the peace" and then subsequently charged with "contempt of court". He was only repeating what was in the public domain already by reading verbatim a BBC news article on the same case, therefore if he's guilty due to that so is the BBC. He also was arrested and charged within 5 hours and the Judge apparently watched 5 minutes of over an hour of evidence. His Solicitor was told to not bother travelling up by the cops as TR was being released - minutes later he was in a van on the way to court. He was not offered the chance to plea. There was also no specifics given about the nature of the contempt - it was not specified. He then was also subject to an order and this was very important as it affected his classification as a criminal. Beyond this, how he was treated in the prison meant he lost 3 stone in two months for a start.

I'm honestly not sure what I think about Tommy Robinson but this was an absolutely disgusting abuse of power. That the judge was photographed laughing at TR from the court was also deeply concerning. Luckily he has been bailed by a Judge who looked at the process and decreed it was disgusting - if anyone wants to read the judgement it's in the public domain and exceptionally damning. I don't care who you are but you are entitled to a fair trial and he simply put did not receive one. If it could happen to him it could happen to any one of us and we wouldn't have the ability to crowdfund a legal defence. If he's guilty, fine go for it but we can not dispense with due process regardless of how distasteful the individual... all you do is give his supporters reason to think he's being silenced.

There was another point I was going to make about TR and I can't remember it - I'll edit this if it comes to me.

[Saracen]

I haven't studied the Robinson case(s) but as I understand it, he was fpund guilty of two such offences, on two separate occasions. The second conviction is the one being reviewed, precisely because of apparently indecent haste in going from arrest, to charge, to jail. Also, as I understand it, the material he was reading for some social media channel was promptly deleted.

As for the legal implications on freedom of speech, I can assure you that, as a matter of hard fact, it goes further than inciting violence. As a journalist, I have several books on jourbalusm and the law, and believe me, where freedom of speech starts and stops is a major part of it. As a journalist, I would maintain that any responsible journalist MUST understand where the lines are, at least in so far as it affects them. It doesn't necessarily mean you always follow the law, but if you're going to decide to break the law and publish anyway, you need to know what you're risking. But, sometimes, the judgement call will be that, illegal or not, the story needs to be told. The classic example is the MP'e expenses scandal. The data used was effectively stolen and publishing could gave resulted in prosecutions, but uit was self-evidently "in the public interest" to proceed, and given the mood of the public upon finding out, it would've been a very brave prosector that took action.

Probably the biggest single (potential) limit on free speech is risk of defamation. If you defame someone that can afford the significant cost of bringing a legal case, defending it WILL cost you many tens of thousands and it can eadily hit hundreds of thousands. Reports put Cliff Richard's legal costs at north of £2m, and the BBC's at more than that. And, of course, the loser can end up paying much or all of the winner's costs.

Here's one very direct legal implication. Several times, I've refused work because a publisher has tried to make me liable gor their costs by including a clause in a contract/commission whereby I indemnify them for sny/all costs incurred in defending such an action. That, potentially, makes me liable for a multi-million pound bill. Oh, hell no.

Defamation cases are a very direct limit on free speech because if you get that wrong, you are putting your house and everything you own on the line.

[wazzickle]

I personally think free speech from a legal perspective ends only when you try and incite violence.

The problem with leaving it at that is it's not clear-cut. There's the idea of 'dog-whistle racism', when you intentionally put something into the minds of the listeners without saying it directly. Zac Goldsmiths' mayoral campaign was widely taken to be a clear example of dog-whistle racism, essentially implying that that Sadiq Khan was a terrorist, or at least consorted with terrorists. More recently, before a couple of weeks ago (or so I read) there were no recent examples of violence or threats towards women in burkas, but after Boris said his piece, violence and threats including references to letterboxes went up massively. Words have power - a lot of power. To deny the holocaust, for example, is both a symptom and a cause of a particularly perverse form of anti-semitism, that has been around for literally centuries, that has jews secretly controlling things, particularly politically and financially, from behind the scenes. Anti-semitic attacks have been on the rise in europe in the last 10 years. There is a direct connection. Inciting someone to violence directly should clearly be illegal, but we do have the contextual wherewithal to be able to discern what people actually mean, what people actually want others to hear in their speech, and if it's hateful, coming from someone with a platform, it often is. And that's even before we consider the mental effects that come from, yaknow, walking down the street and being abused constantly, even if it's not with the direct threat of violence.

Living without violence should be a basic human right, so should living without the threat as well.