What do we mean by Free Speech
Discussion
avinalarf said:
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.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 ?
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.)
"And with people like me"......
Which people are those ?
People that wish to express a different point of view to your own ?
QED.
I'll try again: people who seek limit freedom of speech and expression directly contribute to the public's inability to think critically.
It's why, in the current case, the deeper problem with Islam is not the gun-totting scumbags, but the inability of the general Muslim population (the ones we call moderates) to criticise and contradict their religious leaders. That's why the Slough shopkeeper interviewed on R4 this morning said that he agreed with freedom of speech, but non-Muslims had to understand the reaction they would get. He has been brought up by religious leaders that do not allow contradiction (e.g. the fatwa banning the making of snowmen, FFS). No room for critical thinking. And look what follows from such intolerance.
Edited by EskimoArapaho on Wednesday 14th January 13:07
Has there ever been a time when there were not limits?
I looked for something that covered our current situation.
Here is an article on the current situation in the UK,.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by...
I looked for something that covered our current situation.
Here is an article on the current situation in the UK,.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by...
jonby said:
Of course no right minded person can ever even begin to justify violence
For me freedom of speech should be freedom from violence or fear as a response. Freedom of speech does not mean free from repercussions though - you can't expect to say idiotic things without being thought of or treated as an idiot. You can't defame someone without them having redress. You can't threaten someone without expectation that the state will limit your freedoms.There is a responsibility that comes with freedom but it's not a responsibility to not offend.
A smarter question is does anyone have the right to not be offended.
Answer: No.
They certainly should have that /expectation/, but absolutely not the right. If someone is particularly offensive, society is usually pretty good at calling them out on it. Equally if one person takes disproportionate offence to something generally held innocuous the same applies (sadly not often the authoritative bodies but I digress).
ETA: Libel/slander are not appropriate here as those must be based on /false/ claims.
Answer: No.
They certainly should have that /expectation/, but absolutely not the right. If someone is particularly offensive, society is usually pretty good at calling them out on it. Equally if one person takes disproportionate offence to something generally held innocuous the same applies (sadly not often the authoritative bodies but I digress).
ETA: Libel/slander are not appropriate here as those must be based on /false/ claims.
h8tax said:
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.
Except that they don't. The US has plenty of laws that directly contradict "free speech". Libel, defamation, copyright are easy ones. Then one might also ask Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden about their right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment.Americans only have a right to free speech until it becomes inconvenient for the US Government.
Countdown said:
DeanR32 said:
When did we start noticing such restrictions coming into play. When did the nation start to become so politically correct as to limit things we can say?
Don't most of the "PC" restrictions effectively just mean "Don't behave like a 2@ ?"There's boundaries in all aspects of our lives. I don't even notice such boundaries because I simply don't push them, or want to.
Not sure I have ever been "Offended" properly, have you ?
I think most people who claim offence aren't really bothered but feel like they should be, or have an opportunity to be.
Say you get called fat, then it is probably a statement of fact, perhaps the other person is being personal and it says more about them but if you are fat and get called fat, it is because you are fat, if you are offended then you are in denial, you know you are fat but have not done anything about it, did you think nobody else noticed ? guess what they did, but are too polite to say, are you offended, no you are fat and have been caught out on it !
Are Muslims really bothered by the cartoon, probably not I reckon, do they feel they should react or use it as a reason to strike at their perceived enemies, I would say yes.
I think we all live in a carefully contrived bubble of how we view ourselves and the groups we belong to and when someone bursts that bubble thats when we get "Offended", it is actually our illusion has been broken in a lot of cases, we have been told what we deep down already know, at the moment, the west is telling hardline Islam what it thinks due to what has happened, the cartoons thing shows that it doesnt like being told that worrying about pictures is b
ks, there is more reality coming, probably both ways.
I think most people who claim offence aren't really bothered but feel like they should be, or have an opportunity to be.
Say you get called fat, then it is probably a statement of fact, perhaps the other person is being personal and it says more about them but if you are fat and get called fat, it is because you are fat, if you are offended then you are in denial, you know you are fat but have not done anything about it, did you think nobody else noticed ? guess what they did, but are too polite to say, are you offended, no you are fat and have been caught out on it !
Are Muslims really bothered by the cartoon, probably not I reckon, do they feel they should react or use it as a reason to strike at their perceived enemies, I would say yes.
I think we all live in a carefully contrived bubble of how we view ourselves and the groups we belong to and when someone bursts that bubble thats when we get "Offended", it is actually our illusion has been broken in a lot of cases, we have been told what we deep down already know, at the moment, the west is telling hardline Islam what it thinks due to what has happened, the cartoons thing shows that it doesnt like being told that worrying about pictures is b
ks, there is more reality coming, probably both ways.Edited by J4CKO on Wednesday 14th January 13:09
LucreLout said:
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.
This is still on the BBC website:
BBC said:
bestowing upon Arkwright his trademark stutter, which was not only entirely convincing but always perfectly judged for comic effect.[/BBC]
His stutter is not at all convincing. He gets the breathing fundamentally wrong. It is a comedy parody version I would liken it to a sitcom about a black family where the actors are white and have blackened-up. Imagine the BBC showing that
My original post was that I would never want shows like this banned. I would instead argue for more shows that mocked anything and everything whether that's sex, race, religion, etc...
His stutter is not at all convincing. He gets the breathing fundamentally wrong. It is a comedy parody version I would liken it to a sitcom about a black family where the actors are white and have blackened-up. Imagine the BBC showing that
My original post was that I would never want shows like this banned. I would instead argue for more shows that mocked anything and everything whether that's sex, race, religion, etc...
onomatopoeia said:
h8tax said:
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.
Except that they don't. The US has plenty of laws that directly contradict "free speech". Libel, defamation, copyright are easy ones. Then one might also ask Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden about their right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment.Americans only have a right to free speech until it becomes inconvenient for the US Government.
![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/Uk9zJqEV.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/Uk9zJqEV" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/Uk9zJqEV.jpg)
This hasn't made the mainstream press yet but Miliband is on dangerous ground here imo. There are already race laws which deal with anti Muslim bigotry and no reasonable person would disagree with them however Miliband wants to take this a step further it seems and introduce laws to protect an ideology from criticism.
This is similar to what Blair wanted to do in 2006:
"Ministers lose religious bill bid"
"The bill was aimed at extending the concept of the UK's race hate laws to cover belief but critics said ministers' proposals would have made it too wide-reaching. "
"Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the defeats were "a victory for Parliament". He branded the bill a "foolish manifesto commitment" introduced to "appease" some minority groups, and which had "threatened freedom of speech".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664398.stm
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/...
This is similar to what Blair wanted to do in 2006:
"Ministers lose religious bill bid"
"The bill was aimed at extending the concept of the UK's race hate laws to cover belief but critics said ministers' proposals would have made it too wide-reaching. "
"Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the defeats were "a victory for Parliament". He branded the bill a "foolish manifesto commitment" introduced to "appease" some minority groups, and which had "threatened freedom of speech".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664398.stm
article said:
Labour would outlaw Islamophobia, says Miliband in an exclusive interview
A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.
Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.
Continues here.....A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.
Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff