What do we mean by Free Speech

[Countdown]

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?

I'd class that as "incitement to hatred" but as long as its only words that's ok I guess.

What about the abuse that was chanted when the bodies of British soldiers were being repatriated to the UK? Or the poppy burning? Still freedom of speech?

[Pit Pony]

Free speech, should not be allowed. We are not safe with our own opinions, and should only think what the Church and State tell us to think.

[BGARK]

Countdown said:

What about the abuse that was chanted when the bodies of British soldiers were being repatriated to the UK? Or the poppy burning? Still freedom of speech?

Good point.

I suppose the primary rules should always be set by the host, ie "Britain", the same as you probably have rules in your own home, if I popped round I would do my best to behave because its "your home", an its good manors to do so.

In your example it would be justified in my opinion to escort said perpetrators out of my home..

[Countdown]

BGARK said:

Countdown said:

What about the abuse that was chanted when the bodies of British soldiers were being repatriated to the UK? Or the poppy burning? Still freedom of speech?

Good point.

I suppose the primary rules should always be set by the host, ie "Britain", the same as you probably have rules in your own home, if I popped round I would do my best to behave because its "your home", an its good manors to do so.

In your example it would be justified in my opinion to escort said perpetrators out of my home..

And if those perpetrators are British passport holders as well? That aside I'm not sure why universal rights such as free speech vary depending on whose "home" it is. In a democratic country the law should be applied consistently.

[BGARK]

Countdown said:

That aside I'm not sure why universal rights such as free speech vary depending on whose "home" it is.

So if I come around your house, take a dump on your carpet and have a go on your wife, you then go mental and tell me to get out, I will say I wont leave because of a bit of paper, and actually I am sleeping in your bed tonight. There always come a breaking point.

[Countdown]

BGARK said:

So if I come around your house, take a dump on your carpet and have a go on your wife, you then go mental and tell me to get out, I will say I wont leave because of a bit of paper, and actually I am sleeping in your bed tonight. There always come a breaking point.

This country is no more "your" house than it is mine. People of a different colour, a different religion, a different ethnic origin have the same rights as you. Therefore they're entitled to the same protections under the law. So if its ok for you to be a tt, then that right extends to them as well.

[BGARK]

Countdown said:

This country is no more "your" house than it is mine. People of a different colour, a different religion, a different ethnic origin have the same rights as you. Therefore they're entitled to the same protections under the law. So if its ok for you to be a tt, then that right extends to them as well.

Yes it is, so what do I do if I don't agree with you?

[Countdown]

Yes what is?

[fido]

Countdown said:

What about the abuse that was chanted when the bodies of British soldiers were being repatriated to the UK?

I would classify any disruption of a memorial or funeral service to merit arrest.

[Countdown]

Eric The Camel said:

Chanting? Freedom of speech.
Poppy burning? Freedom of expression.

Do I agree with either? No, I do not but I am fortunate to live in an enlightened country where people who express views I don't agree with are allowed to put those opinions out there.

I'm also allowed to call them a bunch of t***s and as long as that balance is maintained then I'm happy.

I disagree. I think it's offensive and should be banned. However I just think there needs to be consistency in deciding what is and isn't offensive.

[Countdown]

fido said:

Countdown said:

What about the abuse that was chanted when the bodies of British soldiers were being repatriated to the UK?

I would classify any disruption of a memorial or funeral service to merit arrest.

I'm playing devils advocate here - what's so special about a funeral or memorial service? What about when Thatcher died? Should those protesting have been arrested?

[fido]

Countdown said:

I'm playing devils advocate here - what's so special about a funeral or memorial service? What about when Thatcher died? Should those protesting have been arrested?

Good point - I can't think of any culture that doesn't treat death/grievance as something sacred. Then there's the public order side to it - if you are protesting peacefully by turning your back then it's not disrupting the event (assume this is what you meant by the Thatcher comment).

[J4CKO]

Very little actually offends me, say what you want to me and I am unlikely to be bothered, I may even agree or perhaps I may even be smart enough to realise I am having my buttons pushed and just laugh at you.

I struggle to be offended on someone else's behalf, I try not to offend others but will say what I think, sometimes, people need offending.

[FredClogs]

Eric The Camel said:

I'm also allowed to call them a bunch of t***s.

Not on here you're not as you've obviously self censored.

[eharding]

Eric The Camel said:

FredClogs said:

Not on here you're not as you've obviously self censored.

Smart arse.

2@

[bearman68]

Isn't it about not singling out a single person for untrue or harmful things.

So you can say what you want about a group, society etc, but you cannot say those things to an individual unless they can be shown to be true.

For example you can say all Englishmen are thieves - stupid but legitimate, but you cannot say Joe Bloggs is a thief, unless there is evidence that can be proved.

[LucreLout]

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?

Free speech. Offensive as hell, but its not threatening.

[LucreLout]

Countdown said:

I'm playing devils advocate here - what's so special about a funeral or memorial service? What about when Thatcher died? Should those protesting have been arrested?

No, but they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

[andoverben]

rohrl said:

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.

Speak for your self

[Halb]

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.

Wow. Very good, as he normally is.
Reading some of the twaddle in the other thread makes me wonder sometimes.