Freedom of speech.

CB19Kevo

Looks like it is being eroded day by day at the moment.
This short video i think sums up what most of us expect in a modern society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w

skooterblue2

Freedom of Speech is a great concept .... but unfortunately it doesnt suit everyone.
Sometimes it doesnt suit .. now today with Twitter it goes from something someone heard someone else and allow room for doubt like the Kentucky fried mouse to beiing on the internet instantly and be quoted as being Gospel. See Ceelo Green last year. Once it is out there it cannot be recovered.

Then you have little Ibrihim Halawa, who tore up his Irish passport on youtube and "blood will run free in the streets" but now it is coming back to haunt him. Freespeech is not for everyone ....

reprise

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

George Orwell.

AboutaWeekAgo

ChunkyLover54

CB19Kevo wrote: »

Looks like it is being eroded day by day at the moment.

With the growth of the internet, I doubt there's been a time in history when there has been more free speech (or at least the possibility of broadcasting one's views to so wide an audience).

CB19Kevo

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

With the growth of the internet, I doubt there's been a time in history when there has been more free speech (or at least the possibility of broadcasting one's views to so wide an audience).

Yes,But many Governments and private corporations are choosing to limit free speech so as not to offend.

Venus In Furs

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

With the growth of the internet, I doubt there's been a time in history when there has been more free speech (or at least the possibility of broadcasting one's views to so wide an audience).

Exactly.

Those words from Philip Pullman are spot-on - that is free speech in motion.

But to be able to say anything at all whatsoever, to anyone, about anyone... does not exist. And never has. In democracies or dictatorships or anywhere.

K4t

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

With the growth of the internet, I doubt there's been a time in history when there has been more free speech (or at least the possibility of broadcasting one's views to so wide an audience).

That's not free speech, that's just a platform for more people. Free speech or the absence of it is people being arrested in England for twitter comments. Or hate speech. Or incitement to hatred etc.


There is only one country in the world who value freedom of speech and expression. And the US is the reason we can even pretend to have what we foolishly refer to as freedom of speech in this country.

reprise

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Exactly.

Those words from Philip Pullman are spot-on - that is free speech in motion.

But to be able to say anything at all whatsoever, to anyone, about anyone... does not exist. And never has. In democracies or dictatorships or anywhere.

You haven't met my kids.

biko

I'm not looking at some video.
What's your point OP?

dar100

biko wrote: »

I'm not looking at some video.
What's your point OP?

He dosent have one , that's the beauty of it!!

CB19Kevo

biko wrote: »

I'm not looking at some video.
What's your point OP?

That's your choice.

ChunkyLover54

K4t wrote: »

That's not free speech, that's just a platform for more people. Free speech or the absence of it is people being arrested in England for twitter comments. Or hate speech. Or incitement to hatred etc.

There is only one country in the world who value freedom of speech and expression. And the US is the reason we can even pretend to have what we foolishly refer to as freedom of speech in this country.

In the latest Press Freedom Index, Ireland is ranked 16th, U.S. comes in at 46th. (out of 180 countries)

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

Venus In Furs

The arrests for Twitter comments are absolutely ridiculous to be fair.

Freedom of expression being so sacred that ***** like the Westboro Baptist Church can picket funerals is also absolutely ridiculous. The US hardly has a squeaky-clean record on civil liberties in general like.

end of the road

K4t wrote: »

That's not free speech, that's just a platform for more people. Free speech or the absence of it is people being arrested in England for twitter comments. Or hate speech. Or incitement to hatred etc.

yeah but thats just the police and CPS trying to justify their jobs and keep the government from cutting staff.

K4t wrote: »

There is only one country in the world who value freedom of speech and expression. And the US is the reason we can even pretend to have what we foolishly refer to as freedom of speech in this country.

the US is not the reason for us having what free speach we have. their foreign policy does not protect us.

Berserker

Venus In Furs wrote: »

The arrests for Twitter comments are absolutely ridiculous to be fair.

Why, do you believe that there should be no limits on what people can say on the likes of twitter?

Venus In Furs

Berserker wrote: »

Why, do you believe that there should be no limits on what people can say on the likes of twitter?

No, but I don't believe in arrests either - making tweets a police matter is a bridge too far IMO. Banning them from Twitter would suffice I think.

The ultimate silencing of them would be mass ignoring - I mean that would completely disempower them, as reaction is the aim of their game. But that's never gonna happen.

Berserker

Venus In Furs wrote: »

No, but I don't believe in arrests either - making tweets a police matter is a bridge too far IMO. Banning them from Twitter would suffice I think.

So, if an individual posted on Twitter that he or she is going to go out and kill person X, such a remark should not be reported to the police?

end of the road

Berserker wrote: »

So, if an individual posted on Twitter that he or she is going to go out and kill person X, such a remark should not be reported to the police?

in fairness that is a death threat which is different. he's talking about people arrested because they said something "offensive" or a little nasty

darkpagandeath

end of the road wrote: »

in fairness that is a death threat which is different. he's talking about people arrested because they said something "offensive" or a little nasty

Well it seems unless your a professional comedian these days you can't make any Jew/Irish/black/stereotype (big list could be used) jokes as they are offensive and may get you arrested or lose your job if you put it up on FB or Twatter..

Venus In Furs

Berserker wrote: »

So, if an individual posted on Twitter that he or she is going to go out and kill person X, such a remark should not be reported to the police?

I was referring to comments that offend people rather than death threats or other threats of harm.

hatrickpatrick

Freedom of Speech peaked in the early to mid 2000s when high speed internet flourished far too quickly for governments to enact any restrictions on it. They've been playing catch up ever since and are beginning to make some headway over the last couple of years.

Thankfully, there seem to be enough people who got a taste of that freedom back in the noughties and are willing to fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

Freedom of expression is certainly being eroded, vigilantes are out there looking for stuff to be alarmed about and are prepared to wreck your lives because of the fact that you expressed an opinion.:mad:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30854477

Have you ever posted something you might regret, or found out with a sting just how public social media is?

Chris Rincon worked at a car wash in Houston, Texas, and he thought nothing of posting a link to a fake news article about President Obama's daughter being pregnant to Facebook. But while exchanging comments with his friends he used a highly offensive slur against black people - and it eventually cost him his job.

Rincon's post was shared to a Tumblr called "Racists Getting Fired (and Getting Racists Fired!)".

Sorry to drop a Godwin, but when I think of unfettered freedom of speech I think of....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0

Zebra3

ChunkyLover54 wrote: »

In the latest Press Freedom Index, Ireland is ranked 16th, U.S. comes in at 46th. (out of 180 countries)

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

Imagine that!!

A country built on ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery not being big into freedom!!!

grundie

The media has encouraged the development of the semi-professional "Offended Citizen" ready to display extreme distress when someone says something that they can find a reason to disagree with.

Pictures of distressed teary faces and lists of outrage laden tweets sells papers and gets lots of lovely clicks. Some people have made careers out of baiting this process such as that Hopkins one.

And of course politicians see this and think "If we placate these poor offended people they will think we are the good guys and we'll get lots of lovely votes."

We reap what we sow. When we let people scream louder than us about why their rights are more important than ours, then of course they are going to get what they want.

Pumpkinseeds

Freedom of speech is important. But lets be honest if you act the dick and make a living out of offending people then the odds are that you will suffer for it. I'm not for a second justifying terrorism. I'm simply pointing out that if you piss enough people off, often enough, some of them are going to come looking for you.

floggg

Deleted User wrote: »

Freedom of expression is certainly being eroded, vigilantes are out there looking for stuff to be alarmed about and are prepared to wreck your lives because of the fact that you expressed an opinion.:mad:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30854477

I think the problem is that people don't seem to understand the nature if free speech, or realise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

You are entitled to air your opinion (within reasonable limits - it has never been absolutely free), but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for you in doing so. If you say something people find reprehensible, they are entitled to adjust how they deal or engage with you as a result. That can include firing you if your employer feels what you say has a negative effect on their business or workplace (subject to unfair dismissals legislation).

What I also find funny is that "free speech champions" only seem to champion the right to offend. They never seem to champion the freedom to respond. If freedom of speech entitles somebody to air an opinion, then it must also allow others to respond as they see fit.

So if you believe in freedom of speech, you must champion and protect the right of sites such as the tumblr refereed or which seeks to draw attention to racist opinions and hold people accountable for it. After all, they are exercising their own freedom of speech to criticise the actions of others.

marienbad

floggg wrote: »

I think the problem is that people don't seem to understand the nature if free speech, or realise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

You are entitled to air your opinion (within reasonable limits - it has never been absolutely free), but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for you in doing so. If you say something people find reprehensible, they are entitled to adjust how they deal or engage with you as a result. That can include firing you if your employer feels what you say has a negative effect on their business or workplace (subject to unfair dismissals legislation).

What I also find funny is that "free speech champions" only seem to champion the right to offend. They never seem to champion the freedom to respond. If freedom of speech entitles somebody to air an opinion, then it must also allow others to respond as they see fit.

So if you believe in freedom of speech, you must champion and protect the right of sites such as the tumblr refereed or which seeks to draw attention to racist opinions and hold people accountable for it. After all, they are exercising their own freedom of speech to criticise the actions of others.

Where do you get the notion that "free speech champions" do not agree with the right of reply ?

floggg

floggg wrote: »

I think the problem is that people don't seem to understand the nature if free speech, or realise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

You are entitled to air your opinion (within reasonable limits - it has never been absolutely free), but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for you in doing so. If you say something people find reprehensible, they are entitled to adjust how they deal or engage with you as a result. That can include firing you if your employer feels what you say has a negative effect on their business or workplace (subject to unfair dismissals legislation).

What I also find funny is that "free speech champions" only seem to champion the right to offend. They never seem to champion the freedom to respond. If freedom of speech entitles somebody to air an opinion, then it must also allow others to respond as they see fit.

So if you believe in freedom of speech, you must champion and protect the right of sites such as the tumblr refereed or which seeks to draw attention to racist opinions and hold people accountable for it. After all, they are exercising their own freedom of speech to criticise the actions of others.

the real problem in the case that I highlighted is that these people are actually trawling the web "looking" to be offended, they're searching tweets and the like that probably have followers in the single digits or similar.

It's a bit like eavesdropping on a conversation in a pub(lic) place and out-ing the people because you're offended by what was heard in a conversation that you were not intended to hear.

To me, that type of activity crosses the line! :mad:

biko

Your speech rights ends where my feelings begin..

hatrickpatrick

biko wrote: »

Your speech rights ends where my feelings begin..

[/SJWs]

_Brian

CB19Kevo wrote: »

Yes,But many Governments and private corporations are choosing to limit free speech so as not to offend.

I don't see a problem with making an effort not to intentionally offend people..
Then there is the argument that its foolish to intentionally offend a group of people who are known and proven killers, to repeatedly offend these people with no real cause other than "I'm allowed do it if I want", well we see where that use of free speech ends up..

DeadHand

end of the road wrote: »

the US is not the reason for us having what free speach we have. their foreign policy does not protect us.

More illiterate nonsense from you, quelle surprise.

If the USA hadn't steamed into France in 1944 to simultaneously defeat the horror of Nazism and contain the tyranny of Stalinist Communism, what standing do you think free speech would have in Europe today?

US interventionist foreign policy is the main reason for the freedom of expression we enjoy in Europe today.

DeadHand

_Brian wrote: »

I don't see a problem with making an effort not to intentionally offend people..
Then there is the argument that its foolish to intentionally offend a group of people who are known and proven killers, to repeatedly offend these people with no real cause other than "I'm allowed do it if I want", well we see where that use of free speech ends up..

So what do you recommend that we as a society cave in to those who use violence and abandon our principles? We let the killers win?

Free speech and the maintenance of Western, secular values is a thousand times more important than not offending any group, no matter how violent or beloved of the politically correct left they happen to be.

Zebra3

DeadHand wrote: »

More illiterate nonsense from you, quelle surprise.

If the USA hadn't steamed into France in 1944 to simultaneously defeat the horror of Nazism and contain the tyranny of Stalinist Communism, what standing do you think free speech would have in Europe today?

US interventionist foreign policy is the main reason for the freedom of expression we enjoy in Europe today.

And is the main reason it by and large doesn't exist in the Middle East.

And don't forget that the US was happy enough to cosy up to Fascist Spain.

AnonoBoy

Don't forget that some of the same people who were mouthing off about banning a sitcom set during famine times were also posting "Je Suis Charlie" a week later without a hint of self-awareness.

Lots of people want free speech when it suits them but get all shirty when someone says something that they don't like.

allibastor

It doesnt really exist

floggg

marienbad wrote: »

Where do you get the notion that "free speech champions" do not agree with the right of reply ?

I put it in inverted commas because they people who tend to squawk loudest of free speech only really mean their right of free speech - not anybody else's.

They believe in their right to make bigoted, racist or homophobic statements but then cry foul when they are publicly condemned or discredited for doing so and claim their right free speech is being attacked (not in the physical sense) or criticised.

The fail to realise that freedom of speech allows others to respond to their rantings and make their feelings known on it.

floggg

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Don't forget that some of the same people who were mouthing off about banning a sitcom set during famine times were also posting "Je Suis Charlie" a week later without a hint of self-awareness.

Lots of people want free speech when it suits them but get all shirty when someone says something that they don't like.

And don't forget that the French government who talked such a good game about protecting free speech arrested a large number of people in the aftermath of the attacks for expressing public support for the attackers or terrorists - including that Dieudionne guy for saying "je me sens Charlie Coulibaly" ("I feel like Charlie Coulibaly").

The remark, which has since been taken down, was a mash-up of the #JeSuisCharlie tag and the name of Amedy Coulibaly, the man who killed a policewoman near a Jewish school and four people at a Jewish supermarket in Paris. Dieudonne later defended the remark by saying he felt like he was being persecuted by authorities as if he were a terror suspect.

http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30850879


France also has laws against anti-Semitic speech and holocaust denial on its books, though mocking of Islam and other minorities is celebrated as freedom of speech.

I also liked the thought experiment proposed in the week after the attacks (can't recall by who), which questioned whether anybody who walked into the middle of the rallies in Paris holding a "Je suis Amedy Couilbaly" sign would make it out of there alive.

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the real problem in the case that I highlighted is that these people are actually trawling the web "looking" to be offended, they're searching tweets and the like that probably have followers in the single digits or similar.

It's a bit like eavesdropping on a conversation in a pub(lic) place and out-ing the people because you're offended by what was heard in a conversation that you were not intended to hear.

To me, that type of activity crosses the line! :mad:

I think the people doing that have sad petty lives, but I don't see them as being in any way worse than the people choosing to put forth unapologetically racist statements. I'm

Delirium

floggg wrote: »

And don't forget that the French government who talked such a good game about protecting free speech arrested a large number of people in the aftermath of the attacks for expressing public support for the attackers or terrorists - including that Dieudionne guy for saying "je me sens Charlie Coulibaly" ("I feel like Charlie Coulibaly").

16 year old student has been jailed for posting a picture which an ironic version of a previous Charlie cover image

Egginacup

K4t wrote: »

That's not free speech, that's just a platform for more people. Free speech or the absence of it is people being arrested in England for twitter comments. Or hate speech. Or incitement to hatred etc.


There is only one country in the world who value freedom of speech and expression. And the US is the reason we can even pretend to have what we foolishly refer to as freedom of speech in this country.

Are you fucking kidding me?
What happened to Phil Donoghue, Dan Rather and others who spoke out against the Iraq War? What happened to Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, Scott Ritter?
What happens when you try to petition government to seek redress for grievances (Occupy Movement)? You get beaten, maced, and tasered off the streets.
Try give a lecture or write an op-ed article criticising AIPAC or Israeli actions against Palestinians and while you won't be landed in jail, your job and your right to earn a living either now or in the future will be flushed down the can.
Take a look at many college campuses in the US where if you criticise the college or ridicule a governor/bursar/provost etc or satirise policy in a student paper/ragmag/periodical you will be severely punished and often put on police watch lists (domestic terrorism and all that crap).

Free speech in America? ha, that's a good one.

Egginacup

Venus In Furs wrote: »

The arrests for Twitter comments are absolutely ridiculous to be fair.

Freedom of expression being so sacred that ***** like the Westboro Baptist Church can picket funerals is also absolutely ridiculous. The US hardly has a squeaky-clean record on civil liberties in general like.

Thing is, in the US you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't expose government criminality and corruption.

You can stand in front of the White House with a bunch of Tea-Party retards and hold up placards demanding some nonsense like "Bury Obamacare! Take back the country! Show us your Birth Cert, Obummer!" or some drivel like that and nobody's going to go near you because they know you haven't a clue what you're on about and pose no threat to the powers that be.

By contrast, stand in front of the White House demanding investigations into SEC malfeasance, John Kerry's proof of Syrian nerve gas attacks and minimum wage hikes and you will most likely be ordered to disperse. If you don't you will be arrested.

The difference between the two scenarios is very simple. The latter example are speaking the truth and exposing corruption and subterfuge and this must be crushed.

sin_city

Human progress requires that others are offended.......Do you think questioning slavery, women's rights and whether or not the world was flat should not have happened in the past?

Richard Hillman

I would like to see the "don't be a dick rule" enshrined in the constitution.

Hande hoche!

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I would like to see the "don't be a dick rule" enshrined in the constitution.

I would prefer discrimination against Richards be kept out of the constitution.

marienbad

floggg wrote: »

I put it in inverted commas because they people who tend to squawk loudest of free speech only really mean their right of free speech - not anybody else's.

They believe in their right to make bigoted, racist or homophobic statements but then cry foul when they are publicly condemned or discredited for doing so and claim their right free speech is being attacked (not in the physical sense) or criticised.

The fail to realise that freedom of speech allows others to respond to their rantings and make their feelings known on it.

This is just restating what you said before ! as I said to that post I don't know of any free speech activists that don't believe in right of reply.

In actual most free speech rants are exercising a right to reply , - the Shannon protests at Berties allowing US access, Charlie Hebdo to Islamic fundamentalism , virtually all protests are a reaction .

marienbad

floggg wrote: »

And don't forget that the French government who talked such a good game about protecting free speech arrested a large number of people in the aftermath of the attacks for expressing public support for the attackers or terrorists - including that Dieudionne guy for saying "je me sens Charlie Coulibaly" ("I feel like Charlie Coulibaly").



http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30850879


France also has laws against anti-Semitic speech and holocaust denial on its books, though mocking of Islam and other minorities is celebrated as freedom of speech.

I also liked the thought experiment proposed in the week after the attacks (can't recall by who), which questioned whether anybody who walked into the middle of the rallies in Paris holding a "Je suis Amedy Couilbaly" sign would make it out of there alive.

Those arrests are under anti terrorists legislation and not quite the same thing . Still the French government seemed to have overstepped the mark but that proves very little . Just that they are the same as elected politicians in every other democracy

As for that comedian -he has a long history of Ant Semitic rants and if this is not so in this case then nothing will be done about it.

France has anti holocaust etc denial laws for a reason ,and while you or I may not agree with them, cognisance should be taken of that.

And so what if someone walked into the middle of that rally as you say ? What does that prove ? At least they didn't take a machine gun to a mosque or a halal butcher

end of the road

DeadHand wrote: »

More illiterate nonsense from you, quelle surprise.

If the USA hadn't steamed into France in 1944 to simultaneously defeat the horror of Nazism and contain the tyranny of Stalinist Communism, what standing do you think free speech would have in Europe today?

US interventionist foreign policy is the main reason for the freedom of expression we enjoy in Europe today.

slaughtering women and children in iraq didn't protect us. it won't protect us.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DeadHand wrote: »

More illiterate nonsense from you, quelle surprise.

If the USA hadn't steamed into France in 1944 to simultaneously defeat the horror of Nazism and contain the tyranny of Stalinist Communism, what standing do you think free speech would have in Europe today?

US interventionist foreign policy is the main reason for the freedom of expression we enjoy in Europe today.

Kind of ironic, considering the US hardly has any freedom left today?