What do we mean by Free Speech

[Justayellowbadge]

Wacky Racer said:

I prefer to look at it another way.

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...

Disagree.

That would be threatening behaviour.

[JensenA]

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.

Because the Holocaust was arguably the worst atrocity committed on Mankind. The state organised murder of 6 million people based solely on their race. And the only people who wish to deny it are anti Semites and pro-nazis.
I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

[mybrainhurts]

avinalarf said:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_M-zbLqnk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_M-zbLqnk

[TTwiggy]

JensenA said:

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.

Because the Holocaust was arguably the worst atrocity committed on Mankind. The state organised murder of 6 million people based solely on their race. And the only people who wish to deny it are anti Semites and pro-nazis.
I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

Did you see my post above? People have got into trouble just for questioning the numbers. There should be no sacred cows where history is concerned.

[Jasandjules]

Countdown said:

Even though it causes a substantial amount of offence to most Jewish people? And is basically a way for nazi supporters to delegitimise it?

Yes, even though it causes offence. Do you remember that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

You see, to me Freedom of Speech means for others to say what they like in the same way I wish to say what I like. How can I demand freedom of speech for me but deny it to someone else?

I have been mortally offended in my life by what others have said, but so be it. I don't see why someone can tell anyone else what they can or can not say.

I also feel that quite often, allowing someone the freedom to say exactly what they want, simply gives them enough rope to hang themselves with. You see, it is one thing to be thought a moron but quite another to open your mouth and confirm it.

[fido]

Justayellowbadge said:

That would be threatening behaviour.

+1. Completely different from making a cartoon about someone's imaginary sky friend. Or any other sort of belief. For example someone called me a 'kipper this morning - I am still a bit hurt about it now - but they are allowed to say that to me.

[Old Merc]

I don't think we have completely free speech any more due to political correctness.
Mustn't say that it could be regarded as racist,or homophobic etc etc.
A speech or a news paper article can be perfectly acceptable to most people but may be unacceptable and even offensive to some people.Its all down to who is saying what,how he`s saying it and who is listening.
Politicians are only just starting to talk about immigration.A few years ago they were too scared to say one word about the problem.

[qube_TA]

If someone shouts something that is generally regarded as offensive in public then it's not really on, but if they wrote it down then I can't see a problem with it.

[avinalarf]

S13_Alan said:

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.

Forgive me if I find his speech a tad simplistic.
The selective use of quotes and misquotes from biblical or philosophical texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago of any faith or belief can be used by fundamentalists to suit their own agenda.
Wise and learned men have studied the texts and have found a benevolent meaning whilst tyrants have found evil.
Who,for example,would defend the right of Hitler in his Nuremberg Rally's or Islamic fundamentalists in their evil rants.
Free speech is a relative concept in a fair and just World.
We do not live in a fair and just World and so our precious " freedoms " need to be respected within parameters that only our evolution can define.
Hitchen defends the right of Irving to deny the Holcaust ,in principle that right is a betrayal of the principle if it leads to hatred and is an incitement to violence.
With freedom comes responsibility otherwise we give free reign to those tyrants and fundamentalists that seek to destroy the very freedoms we wish to preserve.
That is the conundrum.

[EskimoArapaho]

JensenA said:

Because the Holocaust was arguably the worst atrocity committed on Mankind. The state organised murder of 6 million people based solely on their race. And the only people who wish to deny it are anti Semites and pro-nazis.
I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

You've created the perfect example for the thread. Hand back your "Je suis Charlie" badge.

[Jasandjules]

JensenA said:

I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

Are you saying that because I was born and raised in Germany? Does that make you a racist? ........

Many people who are stupid deny being stupid. I also find this offensive. However, that doesn't mean they should not be able to deny they are f**kwits, in the same way I wish to make sure I can say that I know they are in fact stupid.

It is a VERY simple concept. Freedom of Speech, means freedom of speech.

It does NOT mean freedom to say only those things I don't find offensive. It must include things I find distasteful.

[LucreLout]

benjj said:

. 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.

Pork & apple sausages contain fruit and therefore should only rightly be considered a pork salad.

[JensenA]

EskimoArapaho said:

JensenA said:

Because the Holocaust was arguably the worst atrocity committed on Mankind. The state organised murder of 6 million people based solely on their race. And the only people who wish to deny it are anti Semites and pro-nazis.
I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

You've created the perfect example for the thread. Hand back your "Je suis Charlie" badge.

Please explain, you've lost me.

[EskimoArapaho]

avinalarf said:

Hitchen defends the right of Irving to deny the Holcaust ,in principle that right is a betrayal of the principle if it leads to hatred and is an incitement to violence.

No. You misidentify the problem when you say "if it leads to hatred and is an incitement to violence". Because you have seamlessly switched from the speaker to the listener. That you had to do this shows you where the REAL problems are:
1) some listeners are easily offended
2) some listeners are easily led (the 'hatred' bit)
3) some listeners are prone to violence

[LucreLout]

alock said:

..one of the few disabilities it is still politically correct to mock

Being fat is not a disability

We're also allowed to mock the stupid (labour politicians), communists (see stupid), socialists (see fat & stupid), the French (it's an Englishman's birthright), enviroMentalists (again, see stupid) anyone working in diversity, the list goes on. Oh, and gingers per a previous post.

[avinalarf]

Old Merc said:

I don't think we have completely free speech any more due to political correctness.
Mustn't say that it could be regarded as racist,or homophobic etc etc.
A speech or a news paper article can be perfectly acceptable to most people but may be unacceptable and even offensive to some people.Its all down to who is saying what,how he`s saying it and who is listening.
Politicians are only just starting to talk about immigration.A few years ago they were too scared to say one word about the problem.

There is a lot of difference between saying,for example,that mass immigration puts pressure on housing,the NHS,schools etc or that ALL immigrants are no good,stinky people.
One might be considered reasonable and fair comment the latter not so.( as this is PH I should indicate that the former is "fair comment".)
I agree that PC is not helpful to an argument but that is only because the principle of PC,that is,treating all people with respect regardless of colour,belief or ethnicity has been extrapolated,by some, to exclude fair and reasonable comment.

[h8tax]

One of the (few) things I admire about our American cousins is that their right to free speech is pretty much absolute - take the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Think about just how patriotic americans are and their very deep reverence for the armed forces, and you begin to see how incredibly offensive the WBC are to a very big majority of their countrymen - and yet they are permitted to demonstrate and campaign.

I should be free to speak, and write, and publish anything I like (with a nod to libel laws), using any words I like, no matter how 'offensive' to anyone - and yet I very much cannot - but I should equally accept that those things might be equally strongly rebutted by someone else exercising THEIR right to free speech.

The restrictions on what we can say or write will only get firmer in my opinion - the refusal of most uk media to even publish the latest Hebdo front page being the best (current) example of that. It is easy to trot out the "pc gone mad" line but that is where the current trend started and very sadly I think it will only get worse.

[JensenA]

Jasandjules said:

JensenA said:

I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

Are you saying that because I was born and raised in Germany? Does that make you a racist? ........

Many people who are stupid deny being stupid. I also find this offensive. However, that doesn't mean they should not be able to deny they are f**kwits, in the same way I wish to make sure I can say that I know they are in fact stupid.

It is a VERY simple concept. Freedom of Speech, means freedom of speech.

It does NOT mean freedom to say only those things I don't find offensive. It must include things I find distasteful.

How would I know that you were born and raised in Germany? And even if I did know, why on earth would it make me racist?
I was simply responding to your specific statement that you found it offensive that you were unable to deny the holocaust

[Disastrous]

Jasandjules said:

JensenA said:

I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

Are you saying that because I was born and raised in Germany? Does that make you a racist? ........

Many people who are stupid deny being stupid. I also find this offensive. However, that doesn't mean they should not be able to deny they are f**kwits, in the same way I wish to make sure I can say that I know they are in fact stupid.

It is a VERY simple concept. Freedom of Speech, means freedom of speech.

It does NOT mean freedom to say only those things I don't find offensive. It must include things I find distasteful.

Quite agree. It shouldn't be a crime to say anything at all but of course, people are free to be offended or think less of you as a result.

Like JensenA's suggestion that the Holocaust should be treated as a sacred cow and to think otherwise makes you a racist. He should be absolutely allowed to be that wrong!

Edited by Disastrous on Tuesday 13th January 18:58

[Disastrous]

Jasandjules said:

JensenA said:

I really can't understand why you find it offensive that you are unable to deny it happened without being prosecuted! Unless of course......

Are you saying that because I was born and raised in Germany? Does that make you a racist? ........

Many people who are stupid deny being stupid. I also find this offensive. However, that doesn't mean they should not be able to deny they are f**kwits, in the same way I wish to make sure I can say that I know they are in fact stupid.

It is a VERY simple concept. Freedom of Speech, means freedom of speech.

It does NOT mean freedom to say only those things I don't find offensive. It must include things I find distasteful.

Quite agree. It shouldn't be a crime to say anything at all but of course, people are free to be offended or think less of you as a result.

Like JensenA's suggestion that the Holocaust should be treated as a sacred cow and to think otherwise makes you a racist. He should be absolutely allowed to be that wrong!

Edited by Disastrous on Tuesday 13th January 18:58