What do we mean by Free Speech

[Ali G]

Say what y'wanna say,

Do what y'wanna do,

But Be Responsible for your own actions!

We are here now and can consider alternative points of view because technology - not Gods - made things better

Freedom of speech?

Yes - lets be having it!

[manic47]

I've got the same view as a few others, freedom of speech is should mean freedom of all speech.
If people want to deny the Holocaust, let them. Any normal individual will recognise them for what they are.
It might be distasteful, offensive or just plain ludicrously wrong, but don't make it illegal.

[avinalarf]

EskimoArapaho said:

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

So from that I take it you deny cause and effect.
If I fire a gun in a crowded street and kill someone can I claim that I am not guilty of a crime regardless of my intent.
Would you also defend tyrants to make speeches that incited the listener to rape and murder ?

[Jasandjules]

JensenA said:

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

Where did I say I deny the holocaust?

Now, I could be all offended that you are calling me a denier........... Should you now be criminalised for wrongly doing so?

[jeff m2]

freedom of speech gives people the right to be wrong.

Jeez...are all you guys single

[rohrl]

Is it okay to describe a black man as a ?
Is it okay to describe an Asian man as a ?
Is it okay to describe someone with Down's syndrome as a mong?
Is it okay to deny the holocaust?
Is it okay to draw a picture of Muhammad?
Is it okay to describe someone with Cerebral Palsy as a spastic?

All of the above will cause large groups of people a great deal of offence. Why should we single out some groups in society as more worthy of protection from being offended than others?

Furthermore some actions may be legally permissible but socially unacceptable. Most of us wouldn't let off a stinking fart in a crowded lift though we wouldn't be prosecuted if we did. We just know it's the wrong thing to do.

[Eclassy]

Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist called Siné in 2008 after he refused to apologise for a joke that said Sarkozy's son would do well in life only because he married a Jewish woman. What happened to Siné's freedom of speech?

Dieudonne, the french comedian has had the French government use dodgy judges to ban his comic shows where he mocks Jews and the holocaust. What happened to his freedom of speech?

Africans suffered a great deal more than Jews over hundreds of years during slavery but there is no damn law saying you cant mock Africans or the slave era.

What is so special about Jews?

[Gaspode]

For me, one of the important aspects of whether the exercise of a right to free speech is the freedom of the rest of us not to be exposed to it if we wish.

Writing or drawing gratuitously offensive material in a publication which I have to buy or make a conscious decision to see the material is absolutely fine. I don't have to buy the Daily Mail.

Displaying offensive material such in public, however, placing it on billboards or on buildings or other places mean that I may be exposed to it, see it, and be offended without any chance to avoid it. It's actually difficult for me to avoid exposure to the public display of religious symbology, which I find deeply offensive.

If religious people want to curtail my freedom to offend them, then surely they must accept curtailment of their freedom to express their offensive primitive superstitions in public?

[Ali G]

Tyrants are a different matter entirely.

Within the population of the hairless apes - there are those who seek to dominate.

Always has been, always will be.

And sometimes 'The Emperor Has No Clothes'

And who judges what can be said....

[avinalarf]

Eclassy said:

Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist called Siné in 2008 after he refused to apologise for a joke that said Sarkozy's son would do well in life only because he married a Jewish woman. What happened to Siné's freedom of speech?

Dieudonne, the french comedian has had the French government use dodgy judges to ban his comic shows where he mocks Jews and the holocaust. What happened to his freedom of speech?

Africans suffered a great deal more than Jews over hundreds of years during slavery but there is no damn law saying you cant mock Africans or the slave era.

What is so special about Jews?

Nothing.......
Next question.

[Ali G]

Really?

And truly?

Many of the European Monarchies may have been funded by those of the Jewish faith.

http://www.manfredlehmann.com/news/news_detail.cgi...

[jonby]

Eclassy said:

Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist called Siné in 2008 after he refused to apologise for a joke that said Sarkozy's son would do well in life only because he married a Jewish woman. What happened to Siné's freedom of speech?

Dieudonne, the french comedian has had the French government use dodgy judges to ban his comic shows where he mocks Jews and the holocaust. What happened to his freedom of speech?

Africans suffered a great deal more than Jews over hundreds of years during slavery but there is no damn law saying you cant mock Africans or the slave era.

What is so special about Jews?

It is an issue but there is an explanation. For the black population, they have their one 'thing' - the 'N word'. Above all else, that is seen to be the unacceptable depth which defines someone as racist (I don't necessarily agree, I'm talking about society's view as a whole. For jews, it's hitler/nazis in general but in particular above all else, holocaust denial. Each group have their one 'thing'. Put to one side how rational or not it is, it's the reality. For Muslims, it would appear that their 'thing' is the prophet Mohammed being depicted a certain way. Possibly. If so, I can see the imperfections of the 'boundaries' of free speech - it's a very valid argument

For those posters who believe there should be some boundaries, the issue of who decides what those boundaries are and how they decide is incredibly complex with no 2 people ever having quite the same opinion

It is in fact what goes back to my OP - the reason I struggle to decide my own feelings on this one.

It is also perhaps worth noting that whilst holocaust denial is illegal in a number of countries, primarily Germany and some of it's neighbours, it is not illegal in France or the UK. Instead it rightly or wrongly comes under racial hatred/incitement to hatred laws, which of course cover all races & religions. Duodena clearly comes under that - have you heard his stuff ? But then if so, should Charlie Hebdo come under the same rules when it comes to Islam ? When does it transcend into incitement to hatred ? No easy answers....

[Countdown]

Justayellowbadge said:

Disagree.

That would be threatening behaviour.

What about a group of people saying "Why don't you lot fk off back to where you came from?"

Would you consider that free speech or threatening behaviour?

[EskimoArapaho]

avinalarf said:

So from that I take it you deny cause and effect.
If I fire a gun in a crowded street and kill someone can I claim that I am not guilty of a crime regardless of my intent.
Would you also defend tyrants to make speeches that incited the listener to rape and murder ?

What a bizarre analogy! It ought to be obvious that the cause (as you put it) is not in the tyrants' speeches, but in the listeners' lack of critical thinking. Tyrants will not fourish with critical listeners.

I'd go further and say that religionistas and (most) politicians have a vested interest in keeping Joe Public's critical thinking skills nice and low. And with people like you wanting to nanny and limit freedom of speech and expression, it's not easy for the rest of us to foster critical thinking. (In any walk of life.)

[jonby]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It doesn't help the situation. But then again the spurs/yid army chant argument can lead to on the face of it, a hypocritical stance - I definitely fall into that category

[avinalarf]

EskimoArapaho said:

avinalarf said:

So from that I take it you deny cause and effect.
If I fire a gun in a crowded street and kill someone can I claim that I am not guilty of a crime regardless of my intent.
Would you also defend tyrants to make speeches that incited the listener to rape and murder ?

What a bizarre analogy! It ought to be obvious that the cause (as you put it) is not in the tyrants' speeches, but in the listeners' lack of critical thinking. Tyrants will not fourish with critical listeners.

I'd go further and say that religionistas and (most) politicians have a vested interest in keeping Joe Public's critical thinking skills nice and low. And with people like you wanting to nanny and limit freedom of speech and expression, it's not easy for the rest of us to foster critical thinking. (In any walk of life.)

Whoaaaa...
"And with people like me"......
Which people are those ?
People that wish to express a different point of view to your own ?
QED.

[Justayellowbadge]

Countdown said:

Justayellowbadge said:

Disagree.

That would be threatening behaviour.

What about a group of people saying "Why don't you lot fk off back to where you came from?"

Would you consider that free speech or threatening behaviour?

Bunch of bovver boys to an individual in person - threatening.

Idiot kipper or the like, in a column or blog - free speech.

[BGARK]

Countdown said:

What about a group of people saying "Why don't you lot fk off back to where you came from?"

Would you consider that free speech or threatening behaviour?

Is the "group of people" just talking on the internet or holding a gun to your back at Dover?

Surely if you feel threatened by words the issue is with you, no one else?

[avinalarf]

BGARK said:

Countdown said:

What about a group of people saying "Why don't you lot fk off back to where you came from?"

Would you consider that free speech or threatening behaviour?

Is the "group of people" just talking on the internet or holding a gun to your back at Dover?

Surely if you feel threatened by words the issue is with you, no one else?

And what if the person saying that was a facist or fundamentalist who had an agenda,such as those in Northern Nigeria might say to the Christians.
Or the Russians might say to the Ukranians in Crimea.
Or those in the USA or the UK that judge a man by the colour of his skin or his religion or his sexual persuasion.
Or any number of other tyrants around the World.

[BGARK]

avinalarf said:

And what if the person saying that was a facist or fundamentalist who had an agenda,such as those in Northern Nigeria might say to the Christians.
Or the Russians might say to the Ukranians in Crimea.
Or those in the USA or the UK that judge a man by the colour of his skin or his religion or his sexual persuasion.
Or any number of other tyrants around the World.

What on the internet, or in real life with guns in their hands foaming at the mouth.

Bit of a difference, no?