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

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:19PM #1

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

You?

Rubat · 06-12-2013 12:23PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:28PM

Rubat wrote: »

libel.

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

Shenshen · 06-12-2013 12:29PM

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.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 06-12-2013 12:29PM

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

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:31PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:31PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:35PM

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

biko · 06-12-2013 12:35PM

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

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

Shenshen · 06-12-2013 12:35PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:37PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:37PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:39PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:40PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:40PM

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

Links234 · 06-12-2013 12:41PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:43PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:46PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:49PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:53PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:54PM

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

― George Washington

HalloweenJack · 06-12-2013 12:55PM

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 · 06-12-2013 12:57PM

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 · 06-12-2013 01:02PM

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 · 06-12-2013 01:04PM

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 · 06-12-2013 01:07PM

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

folan · 06-12-2013 01:08PM

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

hatrickpatrick · 06-12-2013 02:06PM

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 · 06-12-2013 02:18PM

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 · 06-12-2013 02:22PM

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 · 06-12-2013 02:26PM

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?

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

Comments