Freedom of speech - Where (if anywhere) should the line be drawn?

Khannie

I'd be a big fan of freedom of speech, generally. For me the line gets drawn at preaching hatred or violence.

You?

Rubat

Khannie wrote: »

preaching hatred

You?

That one is highly subjective, agree with you on the latter (violence). I'd draw the line at death threats or libel.

Khannie

Rubat wrote: »

libel.

Hadn't considered libel because it seems so obvious tbh. Good one though, I wouldn't allow libel too.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ITT: your freedom of speech ends where I say it does, because I say so.

Shenshen

I support freedom of speech al lthe way, as long as it's objective and non-violent.

I draw the line where it descends into personal attacks, insults, bullying and preaching hatred and violence.

Btw, I always found it fascinating that we make a difference between "violence" and "preaching violence"... word can be very violent indeed and have the capacity to hurt people deeply. Words can, over time, kill people.

Phoebas

Shenshen wrote: »

I support freedom of speech al lthe way, as long as it's objective and non-violent.

I draw the line where it descends into personal attacks, insults, bullying and preaching hatred and violence.

Btw, I always found it fascinating that we make a difference between "violence" and "preaching violence"... word can be very violent indeed and have the capacity to hurt people deeply. Words can, over time, kill people.

Is that all religion banned?

Khannie

Shenshen wrote: »

I draw the line where it descends into personal attacks, insults, bullying and preaching hatred and violence.

Just for clarity now (I'm not nitpicking).....you don't think it should be legal to insult someone?

Links234

I'd say I'm even ok with westboro baptist, but people aren't free from the consequences of their speech either.

biko

I don't think we should have freedom of speech.

Well, if everyone agreed with me then it would be ok of course.

Shenshen

Phoebas wrote: »

Is that all religion banned?

*lol

Do you have a map for that minefiled, by any chance?

Strictly speaking, most religions can manage quite a civilised and in a way logical discussion about the tenets of their faith. They've set up schools and universities to teach such reasoning, over here we'd call it Theology, I believe.

I have actually had in the past rather interesting discussions about aspects and details of different faiths, without one side telling the other to convert or burn in hell.

Shenshen

Khannie wrote: »

Just for clarity now (I'm not nitpicking).....you don't think it should be legal to insult someone?

I think that would depend on the type and level of insult. Plain name-calling should not be illegal, but insults that go further and assasinate character (I believe that's the term?), should and are illegal.

Khannie

Links234 wrote: »

I'd say I'm even ok with westboro baptist, but people aren't free from the consequences of their speech either.

They're the most extreme example of freedom of speech that I'm aware of. I really, strongly dislike them. I haven't fully decided where I stand on their right to be assholes like that. It's a terrible conflict to believe that people should be free to express themselves, and just how horrible and awful those people are with that right.

Khannie

Shenshen wrote: »

I think that would depend on the type and level of insult. Plain name-calling should not be illegal, but insults that go further and assasinate character (I believe that's the term?), should and are illegal.

Can you give me an example of an insult that is not libelous, but is character assassination? (and that you therefore think should be illegal)

You can fire ahead and level it at me.

I'm genuinely curious here, so not trying to trap you or anything.

Shenshen

I think I should clarify a little :

I don't think all speech should be allowed everywhere.

A Muslim preacher showing up at a primary school and preaching to the children in the school yard should be asked to leave if the school decides so.

Someone standing outside Ann Summers with a megaphone preaching into the store to customers should be moved further down the road.

A lot of it would be about context, really.

Rabelais

Teenagers and students shouldn't have freedom of speech. No one wants to listen to their idealistic self-righteous nonsense.

Links234

Khannie wrote: »

They're the most extreme example of freedom of speech that I'm aware of. I really, strongly dislike them. I haven't fully decided where I stand on their right to be assholes like that. It's a terrible conflict to believe that people should be free to express themselves, and just how horrible and awful those people are with that right.

I specifically mention them because they are a pretty extreme example, and it does make people think when it comes to where their own personal limits are on freedom of speech, a bit of a litmus test if you will. You see, someone is free to express themselves, however that does not give them a free pass from criticism, or that they are free from other people's freedom of speech to call them out on it.

Phoebas

Shenshen wrote: »

*lol

Do you have a map for that minefiled, by any chance?

Strictly speaking, most religions can manage quite a civilised and in a way logical discussion about the tenets of their faith. They've set up schools and universities to teach such reasoning, over here we'd call it Theology, I believe.

Maybe its a subjective thing, but I've never heard a logical explanation about the tenets of any of the major faiths.

Shenshen wrote: »

I have actually had in the past rather interesting discussions about aspects and details of different faiths, without one side telling the other to convert or burn in hell.

I'd have thought that one of the central purposes of organised religions is to convert others.
And burning in hell is still a pretty mainstream idea in Catholicism.

Shenshen

Khannie wrote: »

Can you give me an example of an insult that is not libelous, but is character assassination? (and that you therefore think should be illegal)

You can fire ahead and level it at me.

I'm genuinely curious here, so not trying to trap you or anything.

Hmm... you may have got me there.
The case I had in mind was a guest in a hotel, a Muslim girl, being asked by the owners if she was a murderer and terrorist becasue she wore a hijab.
I believe this was taken to court in the UK, but I'm not sure about the outcome.

Shenshen

Phoebas wrote: »

Maybe its a subjective thing, but I've never heard a logical explanation about the tenets of any of the major faiths.


I'd have thought that one of the central purposes of organised religions is to convert others.
And burning in hell is still a pretty mainstream idea in Catholicism.

I'm not going to play devil's advocate for the religious here.

The sort-of logical argument can be had when accepting certain basics for the purpose of the discussion. As in, you assume for the moment the bible was true, and go and try and find out what it actually does have to say about a certain subject. Tricky, since it does tend to contradict itself, but an interesting excercise.

Khannie

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd have thought that one of the central purposes of organised religions is to convert others.

Every religion believes the others are wrong and to try and save people they should be converted to the "correct" way.

donegal__road

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

― George Washington

HalloweenJack

I think freedom of speech should go all the way.

It's up to be people to be responsible for their actions, they shouldn't blame other people for influencing them. And people should actually debate the idiots who spout hatred, instead of silencing them. It's just not fair.

Phoebas

Khannie wrote: »

Every religion believes the others are wrong and to try and save people they should be converted to the "correct" way.

And long may they be free to promote their bat**** crazy ideas (and long may I be free to describe their ideas as bat**** crazy).

loveisdivine

I think aslong as you're not inciting violence agaisnt others and you are not bullying someone with persistent personal attacks. Then you can believe and say whatever you want.

Micky Dolenz

Khannie wrote: »

Can you give me an example of an insult that is not libelous, but is character assassination? (and that you therefore think should be illegal)

You can fire ahead and level it at me.

I'm genuinely curious here, so not trying to trap you or anything.

I suspect something like, you are a fcuking bellend as opposed to,you are a deranged unrelenting kiddie fiddling nonce.

TerrorFirmer

Well the line is drawn legally in the constitution and by the ECHR, its pretty on the money as well.

folan

speech should never be free. it has caused more harm than good.

hatrickpatrick

In my opinion it shouldn't be limited at all, but I'm rather a fundamentalist when it comes to free speech so I don't expect many to agree with me

Libel is problematic because of the downright insane way in which it's implemented. Anyone who's been around Boards for a while will remember the infamous MCD incident where because of a libel accusation, Boards had to ban all discussion of anything remotely related to MCD. This kind of thing is happening all the time these days, and to be honest if that's the way it's going to be, I'd prefer if there were no libel laws at all - the lesser of two evils, rather than allowing people to abuse those laws to silence dissent.

Femme_Fatale

Everyone has limitations, even the people who think they agree with free speech at all times actually don't. For example, when they say people shouldn't express offence, voila: they're restricting free speech.

When someone verbally attacks someone, they'd agree it should be curbed - so again, that's flying in the face of free speech.

Shenshen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my opinion it shouldn't be limited at all, but I'm rather a fundamentalist when it comes to free speech so I don't expect many to agree with me

Libel is problematic because of the downright insane way in which it's implemented. Anyone who's been around Boards for a while will remember the infamous MCD incident where because of a libel accusation, Boards had to ban all discussion of anything remotely related to MCD. This kind of thing is happening all the time these days, and to be honest if that's the way it's going to be, I'd prefer if there were no libel laws at all - the lesser of two evils, rather than allowing people to abuse those laws to silence dissent.

Can you imagine the media if there were no libel laws?

Personally, I see the law as the lesser of two evils there.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Everyone has limitations, even the people who think they agree with free speech at all times actually don't. For example, when they say people shouldn't express offence, voila: they're restricting free speech.

ok, let's hear it. how?

[-0-]

There's no free speech in Ireland so the debate is kind of pointless.

I believe in complete freedom of speech, and I would gladly die for it.

Femme_Fatale

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

ok, let's hear it. how?

Somebody phones up a radio show and screams abuse at the presenter and are cut off - yet that's restricting freedom of speech. Hardly unreasonable censorship though.

People who say it should be completely unlimited and any curbing of it is wrong... are not thinking things through.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Somebody phones up a radio show and screams abuse at the presenter and are cut off - yet that's restricting freedom of speech. Hardly unreasonable censorship though.

People who say it should be completely unlimited and any curbing of it is wrong... are not thinking things through.

yeah, I thought so. if you dont understand the terms being discussed feel free to just not enter the conversation.

markesmith

A lot of people don't have anything to say. Often these people are the loudest in a discussion.

I'm not against freedom of speech per se, but if I don't want to listen to you I should be allowed freedom of ciúnas.

preston johnny

Have you ever noticed that you never see anyone trying to use their right to 'freedom of speech' to say something nice or well informed?

If we renamed it the more realistic: "freedom to be a massive twat", do you suppose it would be invoked quite so often?

tricky D

Unfortunately, these days free speech is too often limited because people decide that they are offended, not due to potential for violence, defamation, or other harm to people/sectors. The offense too often is because the issue is only taken in from the subjective and/or absolute perspective and not from various more universal and objective angles.

Tony EH

The line shouldn't be drawn anywhere.

As Chomsky says, You're either for freedom of speech or you're not.

The problem with "drawing lines" on where someone is free to their speech, means that others may draw their lines on what you can say.

Bipolar Joe

There's no such thing as libel in Ireland, any more, libel and slander have been merged to create the Defamation Law.

Also, the defamation / character assassination comparison doesn't work. Defamation occurs when a third party is involved. You can tell Mike he's a kiddie fiddler in a private conversation, but you can't tell Phil that Mike is a kiddie fiddler. Character assassination is a prolonged attack on Mike using more than one instance of defamation.

I've been wondering what was actually contained in the leaflets handed out by the LoM the other day. People seem to think they should silence anything they don't like or agree with. Some day, someone might silence you, and you mightn't agree with it. If it was just a "You should not be gay because that pisses off God" then feel free to disagree. I do, for a bunch of reasons. But stopping someone from expressing what is essentially an opinion is wrong, and you're impeding their right to free speech. If the leaflet said "Burn all the nonce gays, all of them wanna bang your kids" then that is defamation, which is illegal.

Khannie

[-0-] wrote: »

There's no free speech in Ireland so the debate is kind of pointless.

It's not a debate as such (or at least I didn't intend it that way). More a discerning of where the popular view (within AH) of the freedom of speech line should be drawn.

Khannie

preston johnny wrote: »

Have you ever noticed that you never see anyone trying to use their right to 'freedom of speech' to say something nice or well informed?

If we renamed it the more realistic: "freedom to be a massive twat", do you suppose it would be invoked quite so often?

I think so. One persons "massive twat" is another persons "well informed".

Femme_Fatale

Tony EH wrote: »

The line shouldn't be drawn anywhere.

As Chomsky says, You're either for freedom of speech or you're not.

But there is a line, otherwise we'd be saying whatever we feel like on e.g. this board, and I'm not seeing how that would be a good thing. Fairly stupid thing for Chomsky to say.

If by "freedom of speech" people mean anyone should be able to put forward a well-thought-out, supported view, even if many won't be happy with it, ok, I completely agree. But that's still not completely free speech, there are still restrictions.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But there is a line, otherwise we'd be saying whatever we feel like on e.g. this board, and I'm not seeing how that would be a good thing. Fairly stupid thing for Chomsky to say.

If by "freedom of speech" people mean anyone should be able to put forward a well-thought-out, supported view, even if many won't be happy with it, ok, I completely agree. But that's still not completely free speech, there are still restrictions.

that is not and never has been what people mean when they talk about freedom of speech
you know this
there is no way you are so stupid as to not know this.

Tony EH

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But there is a line, otherwise we'd be saying whatever we feel like on e.g. this board, and I'm not seeing how that would be a good thing. Fairly stupid thing for Chomsky to say.

That's nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Boards is a privately owned message board and it's users are subject to certain rules that are defined by the owners of the site and enforced by the mods.

What Chomsky means is that a person is for freedom of speech, even when they wholeheartedly disagree with that speech.

Otherwise you're not actually in favor of freedom of speech.

It's actually a very obvious and logical thing to say.

Annasopra

There's an amazing speech here from Gavan Titley of NUI Maynooth on why you should take action against hate speech and why standing against hate speech is standing for freedom of expression

mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/20131107_04_e.wmv

Lawrence1895

Inciting hatred on religious or ethical grounds. That's the line for me.

PhlegmyMoses

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

If the leaflet said "Burn all the nonce gays, all of them wanna bang your kids" then that is defamation, which is illegal.

It's quite difficult to prove defamation of a group. That statement certainly incites hatred and this is where I'd draw my line.

darkpagandeath

What may offend you may not offend me, What is offensive to one group may not be to another. What's offensive is determined by our group, culture, society, social standing. And people want to make laws about this ? One could say it’s totally and utterly subjective.

Holsten

No line at all.

Femme_Fatale

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

that is not and never has been what people mean when they talk about freedom of speech
you know this
there is no way you are so stupid as to not know this.

Well then "Free speech" is a misnomer.

IMO, it should be fair game to put across any view provided it is in the right setting (e.g. a discussion) and the person doing so supports their assertion, and it is being done to debate, not to inflame.
Audience is important too. Deliberately putting forth a view that will upset your audience is just being an asshole - e.g. Richard Littlejohn saying the women who were killed by the Suffolk strangler weren't a huge loss as they were only junkie hookers. Might be his genuine opinion (which would make him an evil toe-rag but they're out there) but you keep sh1t like that to yourself unless it's a forum where people can debate back with you.
Or ditto that moron who said Movember is male privilege and prostate cancer is male privilege etc.

clairefontaine

First of all, someone elses freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen.

I'd draw the line at child pornography.