The Student Room Group

Would you consider this Freedom of Speech?

I personally think it's his right to post whatever he wants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648

your views?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Qari
I personally think it's his right to post whatever he wants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648

your views?


well considering theirs so much suspicion around 9/11 I don't see nothing wrong with it. Might own opinion is it was a inside job.
Reply 2
Original post by Qari
I personally think it's his right to post whatever he wants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648

your views?


He may be entitled to his own views if he was just a regular person. As a representative of the Christian Church however, he surely must of realised he was making a mistake?

Admittedly, he did not say anything specifically anti-Semitic (based solely on the article, not sure about past comments on Israel/Palestine as haven't read them). Although it would be easy to see where the accusations would come from.

Also Freedom of Speech is not, will not and never has been, a blanket cover to say anything you wish. It has limitations.
Original post by Moh.1Ace
well considering theirs so much suspicion around 9/11 I don't see nothing wrong with it. Might own opinion is it was a inside job.


It's still suspicion? I thought it was fact.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 4
Original post by gt459
He may be entitled to his own views if he was just a regular person. As a representative of the Christian Church however, he surely must of realised he was making a mistake?

Admittedly, he did not say anything specifically anti-Semitic (based solely on the article, not sure about past comments on Israel/Palestine as haven't read them). Although it would be easy to see where the accusations would come from.

Also Freedom of Speech is not, will not and never has been, a blanket cover to say anything you wish. It has limitations.


one thing how can mentioninng Israel be considered anti-semitic I mean he hasn't said Jewish people I thought that's what anti-seetic meant or was i wrong?
Of course, it's not supposed to be free speech, but only if you have triple digit IQ.
Apart from how ridiculous it is to blame "the Jews" for 9/11, being in a role such as vicar it really is the kind of stupid comment one should keep in their pocket.
Reply 7
Original post by Skip_Snip
Apart from how ridiculous it is to blame "the Jews" for 9/11, being in a role such as vicar it really is the kind of stupid comment one should keep in their pocket.


he never said the jews he said Israel
Original post by Qari
I personally think it's his right to post whatever he wants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648

your views?

Freedom of Speech allows people to express their views so it is ok for him to say that. Also what he said is not Anti-Semitic.
Original post by Qari
he never said the jews he said Israel


Still bonkers, and inappropriate for a vicar.
Doesn't matter if it is or not because an institution like that does not have freedom of speech.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 11
He has the right to say that and it wouldn't be the first time Israel have killed Americans.
Yes it's free speech.

Simply being incorrect does not remove his right to say it.
Yes....

Though he iz bringing his Church into disrepute.....

Freedom of expression isnt absolute...
The double standards of freedom of speech at works once more. Welcome to the 21st Century that they call the free world.
Yeah he can say what he wants. Even if it was anti-semitic, he can still say what he wants. Don't know what other people here are implying by saying freedom of speech has its limitations. Even if it's a bigoted opinion, he has the right to say it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Qari
I personally think it's his right to post whatever he wants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31052648

your views?


Your understanding of 'freedom of expression' is warped. This person was using their position in the Church as an amplifier, and his title would lend authority to his words.

In essence he was speaking on behalf of the organisation, if his opinion didn't represent the organisations views they will retract his right to speak with their logo attached.

Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't be able to say what he wants, how is this concept so hard for Islamofacists to understand.
Remember what we've learned from Charlie Hebdo - Free speech for some, not for others.
Original post by JohnCrichton89
Your understanding of 'freedom of expression' is warped. This person was using their position in the Church as an amplifier, and his title would lend authority to his words.

In essence he was speaking on behalf of the organisation, if his opinion didn't represent the organisations views they will retract his right to speak with their logo attached.

Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't be able to say what he wants, how is this concept so hard for Islamofacists to understand.


Indeed, a number of people seem unable to realise that while upholding freedom of speech means upholding the right to speak your mind without facing legal sanction or private violence for it, it does not mean that statements need to be endorsed by any particular organization or carried by any particular forum.
Perfectly fine for them to do so, as long as it's clear that it's their own views. If the impression is given that the CoE takes this position, or endorses the standing of the position while against it then it's perfectly fine for them to take disciplinary action.

It's like everything, feel free to say what you want, but be ready for the backlash. Of course, the problem is that in our society the backlash for this, even if violent, would be irrelevant, the hold "strange" views, while the likes of Charlie Hebdo were intentionally provocative and offensive, and when they got severe backlash a big deal was made about it.

Quick Reply

Latest