How much do you really value free speech?

philologos · 06-01-2010 2:07pm #1

It seems that free speech is all the rage these days. Indeed I'm a strong believer in it, but I'm finding more and more hypocrisy by it's advocates.

There was a thread the other day about the Islamic march through Wootton Bassett when British troops were coming home from Afghanistan. Indeed, 400,000 people joined a facebook group opposing it.

It seems to me that these 400,000 people would be arguing for their right to freedom of speech were a blasphemy law brought in like in Ireland, but wouldn't be arguing for the right to freedom of speech for these protesters?

So what about ye?
Does freedom of speech only matter when it doesn't offend you?

biko · 06-01-2010 2:12pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

I believe in free speech for anyone - liberals, muslims, nazis, you name it.
Only in discussion can flaws be found.

I don't believe in free speech on boards however. Not because I mod it but because outside slander legislation makes it difficult.

AnonoBoy · 06-01-2010 2:12pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

Agricola · 06-01-2010 2:16pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Free speech for all is the only way. That way everybody gets to make their point (no matter how idiotic some points may be) and then everybody is happy. That's alot better than a situation where some groups are thick skinned and get alot of flak, while other groups are uber-sensitive and everyone is walking on egg shells around them.

BlitzKrieg · 06-01-2010 2:16pm

Not when it offends me

Yes with minor restrictions.

that restriction being simply you have the freedom of speech, I should have the freedom of ignoring you if I desire. So that means polite organized free speech. if you want to march, organize it, make it official, and make it clear. Meaning if I have no interest in your cause i do not get caught out by improptu rally interfering in my day.

In the case of the Islamic march, if it was arranged in accordance to the laws and requirements of the state and have dotted all the i's and ticked all the t's to use the public space for a march and notified the police etc to keep things safe and organised.

Then fine, no problem from me.

Gay Pride Parades work mostly without a hitch because of this.

philologos · 06-01-2010 2:17pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

AnonoBoy wrote: »

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

I'm just fed up of peoples hypocrisy on this issue. People are demanding their right to free speech, but in reality in modern Britain and in Ireland you can be arrested for expressing your opinion if it causes offence. There are countless videos on youtube alone of people being arrested for demonstrating and evangelising.

Someone posted a video a pro-Palestine demonstrator on this forum a few months ago, and the Gard was quoting the Public Order Act, and it is actually amazing how much freedom of speech is limited in public in this country. You really ought to take a look at it for yourself particularly section 7 and 9.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/print.html

The_Kew_Tour · 06-01-2010 2:18pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

I believe in free speech and would love to see it been a normal process.

But at end of day it will never really happen. One great thing about the US is that they can say whatever they like.

Was at Ku Klux Klan (and no not member) rally years ago and there was the guy speaking letting his feelings known on certain races and Religeon.

biko · 06-01-2010 2:20pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

It's when people feel they can't voice their opinions and they are getting criminalised they are the most dangerous.

That the first thing the fascists do, infringe right to assembly or speech. Just look at the developments in the US or China.
To criminalise whatever you don't agree with won't remove it, it'll only drive it underground and make it harder to handle.
Even though China openly tortures Falun Gong members it doesn't stop people from joining Falun Gong. The criminalisation/tortures isn't working, it's doing the opposite! Same with the war against muslims terrorists.

AnonoBoy · 06-01-2010 2:25pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Jakkass wrote: »

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

Sorry - I meant to say "I will defend to the depot the right to say it". I mean I'll head down to the Point for a march but I won't fight you.

PCPhoto · 06-01-2010 2:25pm

Magnus wrote: »

It's when people feel they can't voice their opinions and they are getting criminalised they are the most dangerous.

That the first thing the fascists do, infringe right to assembly or speech. Just look at the developments in the US or China.
To criminalise whatever you don't agree with won't remove it, it'll only drive it underground and make it harder to handle.
Even though China openly tortures Falun Gong members it doesn't stop people from joining Falun Gong. The criminalisation/tortures isn't working, it's doing the opposite! Same with the war against muslims terrorists.

why cant they all just get along !!!

I've stopped real scumbags from attacking people with the power of a hug

(this is still after hours isnt it)

minidazzler · 06-01-2010 2:26pm

Not when it offends me

Free speech is fine, but if you are calling for the lynching of someone you should be arrested regardless of if someone does it or not!

So free speech with limits IMO.

philologos · 06-01-2010 2:27pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

minidazzler wrote: »

Free speech is fine, but if you are calling for the lynching of someone you should be arrested regardless of if someone does it or not!

So free speech with limits IMO.

I used to think this more too, there is a problem though. Everyone is going to suggest the limits lie where it offends them personally.

GavRedKing · 06-01-2010 2:34pm

Not when it offends me

Free speech with restrictions.

IMO giving everybody freedom of speech is ok in 95% of the cases but like in all races and communities and nationalities there are elements that try to use there freedom of speech to preach hate which is just a big pile of BS.

hooradiation · 06-01-2010 2:37pm

Free speech provided that you recognise that when your opinion is called a festering heap of malignant shit that your freedom of speech isn't being curtailed, you're just an awful person with awful opinions.

lugha · 06-01-2010 2:40pm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

So many of us say. In reality we wouldn't avert our eyes from our shoe laces if some biffo takes exception to some verbals from someone in the local chipper / pub.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

Don't know about this incitement to hatred malarkey at all. If I proclaim to all that AnonoBoy is a bit of a dingbat or insult your religion/race/mother, and you duly thump me, then it is you and only you that should be reprimanded. Anti-incitement to hatred legislation may be a pragmatic necessity, but it's an unethical one. If you're part of a society that embraces free speech then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes people won't like what you have to say.

AnonoBoy · 06-01-2010 2:46pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

lugha wrote: »

So many of us say. In reality we wouldn't avert our eyes from our shoe laces if some biffo takes exception to some verbals from someone in the local chipper / pub.

Don't know about this incitement to hatred malarkey at all. If I proclaim to all that AnonoBoy is a bit of a dingbat or insult your religion/race/mother, and you duly thump me, then it is you and only you that should be reprimanded. Anti-incitement to hatred legislation may be a pragmatic necessity, but it's an unethical one. If you're part of a society that embraces free speech then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes people won't like what you have to say.

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

If you proclaimed that people should gang up and beat me to within an inch of my life then that's incitement to hatred. And I don't think anyone is willing to accept that.

(At least I hope not - what'd I ever do to you?

)

Lux23 · 06-01-2010 2:48pm

Jakkass wrote: »

There was a thread the other day about the Islamic march through Wootton Bassett when British troops were coming home from Afghanistan. Indeed, 400,000 people joined a facebook group opposing it.

It seems to me that these 400,000 people would be arguing for their right to freedom of speech were a blasphemy law brought in like in Ireland, but wouldn't be arguing for the right to freedom of speech for these protesters?

QUOTE]

I understand what your saying but those 400,000 people had the right to to express their opposition to the march just as marchers had a right to hold their march. I do believe in freedom of speech but there is a time and place for it. They could have had that march anywhere but they decided to do it where and when it would create the most upset and therefore get alot more media attention. Its the cynicism that people would have a problem with here not their views.

Antbert · 06-01-2010 2:49pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

It's a bit tricky. I do think overall I believe there should be across-the-board free speech. As Magnus said, all round free speech, because at least then dangerous racists make us aware of themselves. But when you get into hate speech, which in itself can be very dangerous, should that be restricted? I think that I don't think it should... There are some things that are obviously offensive but as has been pointed out (by Jakkass I think), different people will be offended by different things. And if you limit free speech based on this you don't really know where to draw the line.

Obviously to me there's a vast difference between threatening to wipe out gay people, and calling someone fat, but that vast difference can get blurred somewhere in between.

philologos · 06-01-2010 2:50pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

Is criticising how one acts, or how one lives an incitement to hatred?

Lux23 wrote: »

I understand what your saying but those 400,000 people had the right to to express their opposition to the march just as marchers had a right to hold their march. I do believe in freedom of speech but there is a time and place for it. They could have had that march anywhere but they decided to do it where and when it would create the most upset and therefore get alot more media attention. Its the cynicism that people would have a problem with here not their views.

I have a right to criticism. The only reason they are interested in limiting the free speech of these protesters is because its offensive to them. Criticising the Government, the Army, the State or anything else is free reign by my book.

BlitzKrieg · 06-01-2010 2:57pm

Not when it offends me

Jakkass wrote: »

Is criticising how one acts, or how one lives an incitement to hatred?

not by the definition in the statuebooks you provided earlier:

with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

philologos · 06-01-2010 3:00pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Public Order is a different thing than hate speech. There's another law for that, which I should really read.

lugha · 06-01-2010 3:12pm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

Ok. Did not know that. I assumed religion was included?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you proclaimed that people should gang up and beat me to within an inch of my life then that's incitement to hatred. And I don't think anyone is willing to accept that.

But it is still the beating up mob who do the wrong. It is part of most people's moral framework not to murder, steal etc. Similarly they shouldn't be persuaded by others to go out and do wrong. They must be, and are, held responsible if they do. I know it's necessary to have this legislation, but I do not like.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

(At least I hope not - what'd I ever do to you? )

I know your type. You'd be looking at me sideways given half the chance. :pac:

philologos · 06-01-2010 3:13pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

hooradiation wrote: »

Free speech provided that you recognise that when your opinion is called a festering heap of malignant shit that your freedom of speech isn't being curtailed, you're just an awful person with awful opinions.

So anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person, with awful opinions?
Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with opinions you find disagreeable?

Diabhal Beag · 06-01-2010 3:15pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

We will never understand the value of free speech until we lose it IMO

Antbert · 06-01-2010 3:17pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Jakkass wrote: »

So anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person, with awful opinions?
Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with opinions you find disagreeable?

An excellent point.

Acting on hate speech should be the crime, not the hate speech itself.

Maybe... I'm still indecisive about it.

philologos · 06-01-2010 3:18pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

We will never understand the value of free speech until we lose it IMO

We don't have it fully in Ireland currently.

biko · 06-01-2010 3:21pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Speaking of hate speeches:
On June 17, 1959, at a Belfast rally, Ian Paisely publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd. Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.
quote unverified

Antbert · 06-01-2010 3:24pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Magnus wrote: »

Speaking of hate speeches:

On June 17, 1959, at a Belfast rally, he publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd. Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.

This is excellent. Because the public now know what he thinks. It'd be worse if they didn't.

You say unverified though so I just went on the assumption that they were true...

Edit: Sorry you edited before I replied.

philologos · 06-01-2010 3:25pm

Yes - with minor restrictions

Magnus - I totally disagree with Paisley, but just because he believes the Pope to be the anti-Christ isn't good grounds to prosecute anyone.

A lot of people have views which go a lot further than what you've quoted.

The_Minister · 06-01-2010 3:33pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

Nit-pick: Voltaire never said that - his biographer did.

livinsane · 06-01-2010 3:38pm

I think "free speech" can be interpreted in two ways.

1. You have the freedom to say whatever you wish, without repercussions, as words are merely words.

2. You have the freedom to say whatever you wish but must be prepared to face the consequences that your words might cause.

Take internet blogs, facebook, whatever, you have the power to express whatever opinions however depraved/ignorant they may be, but that's not to say that you won't get the s h i t kicked out of you as a result.

How much do you really value free speech?

Is free speech important? 72 votes

Comments