Freedom of speech versus right to human dignity

Thirdfox

A video I watched on youtube today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bf-lM9Oe4

In this, a Chinese girl from Liaoning basically has a 4 minute rant in a webcafe insulting the victims and survivors of the Sichuan earthquake (for example saying things like "old granny survives after 100 hours? you should have died long ago - what are you trying to do, pretend to be a mummy?" or "why are you calling for aid? you have plenty of grass, go eat that") I don't have the time or inclination to translate all she said (a lot of it worse than this).

But I have read that she has been arrested (perhaps for her own safety). Personally while I believe that someone like this is utterly reprehensible she should be allowed to voice her opinions (just like someone advocating paedophilia - if they want to do it they should be allowed to do so - we should use good speech to drive out the bad). Free market of ideas means protecting the speech we hate as well as the speech we love...

So what are people's opinions of laws preventing some forms of speech in order to protect human dignity e.g. Germany's laws on holocaust denial or pro-nazi slogans. While it is certainly an insult to the millions of Jewish victims should people be allowed to contest what has happened? Should people be jailed for saying otherwise? Should speech be limited in any way or do you advocate unfettered speech (which I think is a terrible idea - even we don't have fully "free" speech, incitement to hatred and defamation laws etc.)

But where to draw the line? Currently in Ireland saying:

"Kill all black/gay/disabled people" = not okay

"Minister X uses prostitutes and looks at child porn" = not okay (if not true)

"The holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the US government" = okay (though not in Germany/Austria)

"I wish more Chinese people died in the earthquake" = okay

"We should legalise paedophilia" = okay (advocating paedophilia itself may not be though as it may constitute an incitement to commit a crime)

Have we got the balance right? As a law student I'm interested in what lay people think about this right (in Ireland we call it freedom of expression though).

Fleming15

Let people say what they want, are they not entitled to an opinion or do busy bodies like yourself have to police everything.

MasterSun

there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in this world,
our freedom of speech is limlited to that we can enjoy our freedom as long as we don't encroach on others.

Grudaire

I'm tempted to start a thread on political correctness

You can say stupid/inciteful things (Just look at Big Ian), and yet get in trouble for using f^ck :rolleyes:

Thirdfox

Fleming15 wrote: »

Let people say what they want, are they not entitled to an opinion or do busy bodies like yourself have to police everything.

So if the Daily Star prints a headline tomorrow with your picture saying "Fleming15 raped my child" you are perfectly happy with that? Or will you be running to a lawyer's office to get busy bodies like ourselves to help you?

This is always a limit. If you want to argue for no limit then you had better be prepared for and accept the consequences. The real question in today's actual society is to define those limits.

But thank you for your view anyway - it's certainly interesting.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The probelm isn't legal freedom of speech it's societal freedom of speech.

Example: If you walked down o'connell street advocating paedophilia, you're unlikely to be arrested. You are, however, likely to be lynched! And a boards thread with people who allegedly swear by freedom of speech condemning you as well. In a very undignified manner.

Is this acceptable? Is it freedom? Are the actions of the lynch-mog dignified?

Freedom of speech requires a toelrant society and a non-conservative population, so no - here in Ireland, at least - we do not have freedom of speech. But we seem to prefer it that way.

Thirdfox wrote: »

So if the Daily Star prints a headline tomorrow with your picture saying "Fleming15 raped my child" you are perfectly happy with that? Or will you be running to a lawyer's office to get busy bodies like ourselves to help you?

This is always a limit. If you want to argue for no limit then you had better be prepared for and accept the consequences. The real question in today's actual society is to define those limits.

But thank you for your view anyway - it's certainly interesting.

Depends on wether or not said rape actually happened - with the Daily Star, you never know. Free speech is for OPINIONS. For somethign to be printed in national tabloid, would have to be FACT.

bonkey

Fleming15 wrote: »

Let people say what they want

Including shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

Fleming15

bonkey wrote: »

Including shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

Strawman argument, Bonkey?

Fleming15

Thirdfox wrote: »

This is always a limit. If you want to argue for no limit then you had better be prepared for and accept the consequences. The real question in today's actual society is to define those limits.

But thank you for your view anyway - it's certainly interesting.

Yo, are you in the law profession?

If so, would you agree that freemasonry runs the legal system (is there no help for a poor widows son, and all that )

Lemming

Fleming15 wrote: »

Strawman argument, Bonkey?

Hardly. With the power attributed to freedom of speech comes responsibility not to abuse that power.

Fleming15

Lemming wrote: »

Hardly. With the power attributed to freedom of speech comes responsibility not to abuse that power.

You are just going to end up running around in circles.

Consider the fact that all media is aimed at the degradation of morals and the destruction of human dignity. Now ask yourself why we have so many problems in society, these problems are created for a reason, namely to provide the reasons for the introduction of a totalitarian system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567003/Why-police-ask-teenage-muggers-Do-eat-chips.html

Thirdfox

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Is this acceptable? Is it freedom? Are the actions of the lynch-mog dignified?

Depends on wether or not said rape actually happened - with the Daily Star, you never know. Free speech is for OPINIONS. For somethign to be printed in national tabloid, would have to be FACT.

Well in the first case - that's more of assault than free speech issues. Of course the mob could shout louder than you (or better yet present reasons why paedophilia is a bad idea).

There's always a smart one Unless I am incredibly lucky/unlucky Fleming15 is most likely not a rapist so I'm giving the example that lies which defame people is not acceptable free speech.

But I do not agree that free speech is only for opinions - one man's fact is another's opinion. Do you think the holocaust was a real event? Most people accept it as fact yet a minority do not - so if a book is written about the denying the holocaust existed would that be a fact or opinion? And should it be allowed to be published?

Fleming15 wrote: »

Yo, are you in the law profession?

If so, would you agree that freemasonry runs the legal system (is there no help for a poor widows son, and all that )

There is free legal aid given to those who are being prosecuted for criminal offences. FLAC (free legal advice centre) also gives legal advice pro bono to people on a range of civil issues so I wouldn't agree that justice is only available to the rich (though naturally it obviously helps, just like in any other system: health, education etc.)

And I am only a law student, not someone who is in the legal profession yet.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Thirdfox wrote: »

Well in the first case - that's more of assault than free speech issues. Of course the mob could shout louder than you (or better yet present reasons why paedophilia is a bad idea).

There's always a smart one Unless I am incredibly lucky/unlucky Fleming15 is most likely not a rapist so I'm giving the example that lies which defame people is not acceptable free speech.

But I do not agree that free speech is only for opinions - one man's fact is another's opinion. Do you think the holocaust was a real event? Most people accept it as fact yet a minority do not - so if a book is written about the denying the holocaust existed would that be a fact or opinion? And should it be allowed to be published?

There is free legal aid given to those who are being prosecuted for criminal offences. FLAC (free legal advice centre) also gives legal advice pro bono to people on a range of civil issues so I wouldn't agree that justice is only available to the rich (though naturally it obviously helps, just like in any other system: health, education etc.)

And I am only a law student, not someone who is in the legal profession yet.

It's still an infringment on free speech. If you're preented from saying how you feel, either by government or mob, you do not have free speech.

As regards the newspaper thing, you can believe it happened or not, but if you claim factually that it did, you 're effectively saying that you have proof that it did. If you claim that in your opinoin it did, then you're saying you don't.

If you putting it in a newspaper without clearly stating that it's opinion, it will be assumed (rightly or wrongly) that it is fact.

SkepticOne

I would need to see a full translation to make a judgement but basically, assuming that the gist of it is as ThirdFox says, I don't think she should be arrested for saying these things.

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." - Voltaire

lostexpectation

er why did she say these things, she didn't like people from that area?

Thirdfox

I think she was mainly complaining that she couldn't play a game on the internet (as they had shut down for the 3 days of official mourning). I'm amazed by the conceitedness and selfishness of her attitude but think people should in principle be allowed to say these things. Doing so with tact is definitely a better option though.

Skepticone: I'd hazard a guess that taking her into custody would probably be for her protection as well as for punishment... many of Chinese netizens are way too immature about these things (tracking her personal information down and publishing it on the net). As much as I abhor her statements I feel much more strongly about potential vigilantism.

turgon

You see the principle problem here is rights verses responsibility. We all have a right to free speech, and a responsibility to not insult others or to falsely accuse etc. The Chinese girl has a right to express her opinion, which she is using, and a responsibility to respect others, which she is flaunting.

However one cannot impose a moderator to judge this, as that in itself would be curtailing freedom of speech. In boards.ie for example the moderators prevent bad language and personal attacks (and I'm guilty of the latter). However we can still talk about mostly everything, if I started a thread debating the merits of euthanasia in rational manner, I don't know if it would be closed down.

This conflict between rights and responsibilities is widespread in society. Everyday little kids threaten their teachers with their "rights" and ignore the responsibilities to treat said teacher with respect. Thats one of the reasons I'm not altogether convinced that a charter of human rights is a godsend.

There is no communal answer to this issue. Any attempts to control rights would breach these rights. Thus, it is up to individuals to take on board responsibilities. And we all know that everyone is not going to this.