Your right to free speech

Poll

Should we have free speech?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - the other represents oppression" - Rowan Atkinson

I firmly believe we have a right to free speech - it is a basic human right to say what we think about something. We can disagree with someone's views and enter into a discussion or debate regarding those views, but unless a person is inciting illegal acts (violence or racial discrimination, for example), then we should not be forced to suppress those opinions for fear of upsetting someone else.

What do you think? Do we have the right to free speech?

Reply 1

Laurence010401

In theory, we do have free speech in Britain.

Reply 2

z-hog

There is a growing number of things that people can't question without fearing consequences to their status in public life, namely:

Everything in the Central European University's (established 1993) curriculum, for short. Should anyone in public life question the narrative of a climate emergency, freedom to cross any border at will, the biological definition of Sex, the 'pay-gap' and the victhimhood and oppressed state of every woman and non-white person on this earth and you'll be asking for trouble. Oh, Christianity as well. The BBC nearly fainted when they had a Catholic in the studio expressing Catholic views, as it was the case with JRM and the national controversy that ensued with his views on abortion. Can't help noticing that everything we must be careful with is what clashes with the CEU's political philosophy. I doubt there is no correlation but you never know. Can't think of any areas outside the CEU's tenets under threat, only in those fields.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 3

Zarek

In reality and probably unavoidably there is not an absolute right to free speech. For example speech beyond accepted norms to incite violence or promote discrimination is prohibited. To be honest I think our newspapers need more curbing.

Reply 4

z-hog

Original post by Zarek

For example speech beyond accepted norms to incite violence or promote discrimination is prohibited. To be honest I think our newspapers need more curbing.

Could we have a tangible and specific example, these things tend to get too airy-fairy. For instance, should a newspaper uphold the scientific definition of sex and they'll be buried under a mountain of accusations of 'hatred' and 'discrimination' against someone. Anyone questioning the scale of the organised trafficking of people into this country will be accused of xenophobia and racism by the CEU's apostles. Where does it all end?

Reply 5

Zarek

Original post by z-hog

I’m more thinking of the partisan, tawdry, sometimes despicable nature of uk tabloid reporting

Reply 6

L'anatra.M

People should be allowed to say what they want unless it's a threat.

Reply 7

z-hog

Original post by Zarek

I’m more thinking of the partisan, tawdry, sometimes despicable nature of uk tabloid reporting

Right, so nothing tangible or that we can put our finger on.

Reply 8

SteveyStack

Original post by L'anatra.M

People should be allowed to say what they want unless it's a threat.

Yes I agree although I would expand your statement to cover hate speech where there is no actual threat but you are talking badly based on gender, race ect.

comedy should have pretty much a free ride though, as stated in OP’s post sometimes you have to risk being offensive. Also what is a life without laughter, I’d argue it isn’t a life at all!

Reply 9

username4910484

Original post by SteveyStack

To cover hate speech where there is no actual threat but you are talking badly based on gender, race ect.

Who decides what constitutes 'hate speech' though?
Should the government have the right to decide what is acceptable to say? Positive change is only ever brought about by free thinking and considering others opinions.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 10

z-hog

Original post by SteveyStack

Yes I agree although I would expand your statement to cover hate speech where there is no actual threat but you are talking badly based on gender, race ect.

The notion of 'hate speech' was created in the US because of their constitutional commitment to free speech, as a means of getting around it in a sort of antidote to the type of politically inconvenient speech to the left. For instance, should anyone say a wall is needed to stop the enormous flow of people into the country and the left will try to suppress such opinion on the back of the 'hate' expressed towards migrants. Should anyone say sex is a biological matter and they will be suppressed for 'hating' people who say it isn't. Out goes the constitutional right to free-speech, it's all 'hate speech'. Bosh.

Reply 11

L'anatra.M

Original post by SteveyStack

Mmm but the issue with hate speech is there is no clear line. And then people who say something that disagrees with someone else's opinion is labelled as hate speech. Long story short: most people can't debate properly because they are too emotionally invested and see everything that differs from their view as a hate speech (yh I'm exaggerating a bit but you get what I mean).
And yh with comedy it's a difficult line not to cross

Reply 12

SHallowvale

Original post by z-hog

There is a growing number of things that people can't question without fearing consequences to their status in public life, namely:

...the narrative of a climate emergency, freedom to cross any border at will, the biological definition of Sex, the 'pay-gap' and the victhimhood and oppressed state of every woman and non-white person on this earth and you'll be asking for trouble.

People can, and often do, question these things without fear of consequence.

What the hell is the "Central European University"? What relevance does it have to the UK?

Reply 13

Joleee

what do you mean by a right? we have rights but it isn't by virtue of being born, unless you believe rights are given to you by God which you’re entitled to. personally well aware that human rights are a social construct.

it’s perfectly legal to offend someone. there is no law that says you get a fine or go to jail just by being offensive. it's only if you threaten, harass, incite violence, or threaten public safety which most of us agree is perfectly reasonable, except free speechers tend to exaggerate what law does in practice.

if speech is limited it’s not because of law; it’s because of public pressure and private bodies acting privately (JS Mill). one can’t expect to tell their boss to go screw themselves in the name of free speech and expect to keep one's job. one also can’t expect to freely enter a contract to use someone else’s property for speech, then complain about the terms and conditions they freely entered into. we also have a civil right to privacy and private contract law.

Reply 14

chaotic1328

Original post by z-hog

I think you might be confused between sex and gender. The former is biological and therefore can be defined scientifically, while the latter is a social construct and therefore beyond the realm of (hard) scientific definition.