What do we mean by Free Speech
Discussion
Vince Cable is not someone I agree with often but he made an interesting point on last week's QT, namely that society as whole is talking a lot about free speech in the wake of last week's events, but of course we don't actually have completely free speech.
From libel laws, to safety (you can't shout fire in a theatre was VC's example), to the illegality in many countries of holocaust denial, to the law against incitement to violence/hate, to homophobic or racist statements......we have free speech in the West strictly subject to a legal framework of rules
I am in total support of the right of a publication to depict Mohammed in a cartoon should they wish, although an element of context is required (e.g. incitement to violence) and indeed the rights of free speech in general, but it certainly makes it somewhat more complicated as a principle given the framework that applies as described above.
Of course no right minded person can ever even begin to justify violence, let alone murder, in response to those cartoons but I do have a certain level of sympathy with the questioning of how it can be legal to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed but not one that denies the holocaust (and I say that as a British jew whose grandparents fought in the British army in WWII against the Nazis). I'm not saying I agree, simply that it's not black and white, to me anyway
I'm also not saying that I disagree with the rules as they stand, but it is interesting that for most of us (I recognise some do quite literally want complete freedom of speech without any limits), when we keep saying we believe in 'freedom of speech', we in reality mean we believe in 'freedom of speech to a point, within a framework that we somehow have to all agree upon'. Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
From libel laws, to safety (you can't shout fire in a theatre was VC's example), to the illegality in many countries of holocaust denial, to the law against incitement to violence/hate, to homophobic or racist statements......we have free speech in the West strictly subject to a legal framework of rules
I am in total support of the right of a publication to depict Mohammed in a cartoon should they wish, although an element of context is required (e.g. incitement to violence) and indeed the rights of free speech in general, but it certainly makes it somewhat more complicated as a principle given the framework that applies as described above.
Of course no right minded person can ever even begin to justify violence, let alone murder, in response to those cartoons but I do have a certain level of sympathy with the questioning of how it can be legal to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed but not one that denies the holocaust (and I say that as a British jew whose grandparents fought in the British army in WWII against the Nazis). I'm not saying I agree, simply that it's not black and white, to me anyway
I'm also not saying that I disagree with the rules as they stand, but it is interesting that for most of us (I recognise some do quite literally want complete freedom of speech without any limits), when we keep saying we believe in 'freedom of speech', we in reality mean we believe in 'freedom of speech to a point, within a framework that we somehow have to all agree upon'. Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
Let me take this subject out of the brutal events in France last week.
I have been struggling with the concept of " free speech ".
When questioned most people say they believe in " free speech " but then often qualify this concept " with the exception of x or y ".
As we know the "n" and "p" word ,and in Germany holocaust denial, are not permitted.
The thing I struggle with is the absolute "right" to gratuitously cause offence.
I have been struggling with the concept of " free speech ".
When questioned most people say they believe in " free speech " but then often qualify this concept " with the exception of x or y ".
As we know the "n" and "p" word ,and in Germany holocaust denial, are not permitted.
The thing I struggle with is the absolute "right" to gratuitously cause offence.
jonby said:
... when we keep saying we believe in 'freedom of speech', we in reality mean we believe in 'freedom of speech to a point, within a framework that we somehow have to all agree upon'. Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
I would argue for complete freedom of speech but with a common sense framework around the time and place, i.e. some things are inappropriate at certain times particularly around children. This then covers your safety concerns as well as things like the TV watershed.Nothing should be beyond discussion or ridicule. I say that as someone with one of the few disabilities it is still politically correct to mock
I posted this on another thread recently, but this 20 min speech by Christopher Hitchens pretty much sums it up for me at least, and it seems I'm not alone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
Ironically, and I guess aptly as it covers this in the second part, it's given about 10 years ago in relation to the motion in Canada to legislate against saying anything nasty about religion.
Ironically, and I guess aptly as it covers this in the second part, it's given about 10 years ago in relation to the motion in Canada to legislate against saying anything nasty about religion.
jonby said:
Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
The government, composed of parts we elect and parts we do not, do. It's really far less an individual right than it is a restriction on what government can do - it CANNOT criminalise a dissenting opinion, nor allow society to perpetrate criminal acts on someone (for holding a dissenting opinion).Yes, we do muddy the waters of this sometimes. Prosecutions for speech that cause defined harm to a defined person of group of people - libel, harassment, shouting "fire!" in a theatre - are consistent, they are not criminalising an opinion (assuming you believe a court can separate opinion and fact). Holocaust denials and other hate speech laws do seem inconsistent - I can certainly agree that I don't want that speech, but I don't want any human court being given the power necessary. I should therefore defend your right to say it, because someday it might be my right that needs defending.
I would argue we value free speech almost certainly due to its protection from govt, as opposed to other civilians. It's astoundingly common how often people forget that free speech corresponds only to what the government cannot do, nobody is obliged to proved you a platform, nobody is obliged to hire you if you've said offensive things. You can do a LOT to people if you're in certain positions, without breaking free speech law, to punish them for what they have said. In that way it is perhaps very anti-democratic - the opposite being the right to bear arms, where anybody, if they don't mind almost certainly being killed themselves, can punish you for what you have said. (This doesn't seem to work very well in practise).
So clearly we're not THAT bothered by certain civilian means of stifling debate. I also, sometimes, find it hard to believe that any seriously oppressive government would give a fig about free speech law - it's just paper backed by judges. These can be overcome.
So perhaps they're just the luxury a western civilisation has. State persecution sounds scary, but - clichéd, I know - in the long run giving people what they want works better. People are persistent, and they're sometimes capable of acting (non-violently or otherwise) against their interests AND yours if your govt pisses them off.
Jasandjules said:
Personally I find it offensive that holocaust denial can be a criminal matter.
For me, freedom of speech must be free. I don't like being told what is acceptable to say or think, that is not freedom.
Is it not too dissimilar with the burqa ban in some countries? - I can understand why they have implemented in law but it goes against the general principal of being free to wear what you want. Or what about minimum wage law - you could argue that some people might want to be able to take a job paying less than the minimum wage. IMO I think as long as the rule can be shown not to reduce 'democracy' then it is acceptable to some degree?For me, freedom of speech must be free. I don't like being told what is acceptable to say or think, that is not freedom.
these terrorists attacked journalists in western country because they didn't like their journalism, western countries in 1999 intentionally killed 15 serbian journalists (in serbian TV bombing raid) because they didn't like their journalism, I can't see the difference...so a bit hypocritic to accuse someone of taking your free speech rights when you bomb other people because you don't like their stance on something
Ali G said:
So this should be acceptable...
'The trough snuffling
s in charge of the Big Banks and Big 4 accountancy practices with whom they are in league with should be shot at dawn'
Just as an example?
Hang on a sec!! Do what you want with the bankers but Don't bring accountants into this!!'The trough snuffling
s in charge of the Big Banks and Big 4 accountancy practices with whom they are in league with should be shot at dawn'Just as an example?
benjj said:
I think the holocaust denial law is very strange indeed.
It happened and anybody who says it didn't is mental, it's just a fact. It's no different from saying, "grass is pink", or "sausages ARE salad", it's just nonsense and there shouldn't be a law against saying it.
My understanding though is that the law extends to any doubts being cast about any area of the Holocaust. Hence that British historian (I forget his name) can't travel to Germany because he has questioned the numbers of deaths resulting from the Holocaust, rather than the veracity of the event itself. It happened and anybody who says it didn't is mental, it's just a fact. It's no different from saying, "grass is pink", or "sausages ARE salad", it's just nonsense and there shouldn't be a law against saying it.
Chipmunk1 said:
Free speech is fine to most people as long as Whats being said does not effect or offend them personally
or any 'reasonable person' as is often the case with legal terminology? I mean a very sensitive accountant (like Countdown for example) would find the statement above intimidating.Jasandjules said:
Personally I find it offensive that holocaust denial can be a criminal matter.
For me, freedom of speech must be free. I don't like being told what is acceptable to say or think, that is not freedom.
I prefer to look at it another way.For me, freedom of speech must be free. I don't like being told what is acceptable to say or think, that is not freedom.
If someone's elderly mother..(It could be yours,..... or any PH'ers reading this) was in a wheelchair after suffering a stroke, and some yob came up to her in the street whilst she was alone and said "Get out of the way you stupid old cripple"....
Naturally, you would be outraged...
However, the yob would not have broken any actual laws, even though he has caused great offence....it's his right to free speech.......
Having rights comes with responsibilities...
Countdown said:
Hang on a sec!! Do what you want with the bankers but Don't bring accountants into this!!
Freedom of speech old chap - apparently 'offense' is acceptable!'I can be very more offensive re certain aspects of the 'accountancy' profession - but will not do so here. Since it is OT - and does not fit well with 'Freedom Of Speech' in the UK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff