Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

"Freedom of Speech is the ability to express your beliefs as long as society agrees" watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Name one society in history where free speech has been absolute, and where you can say absolutely anything you want.

    Free speech has never been totally unrestricted, though I agree that any restrictions should be minor and only if absolutely necessary.
    I can't because one doesn't exist. My point is kind of saying that in the western world we have variants of this but nowhere, in my opinion, has true freedom of speech as I've described it. Does that make sense? X
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hoafanuk)
    True freedom of speech is being able to speak your mind without fear of any legal repercussions - that's the whole point.
    Well, not necessarily just without legal repercussions - it would mean you not getting, say, physically beaten for it as well.

    What it doesn't mean, despite some people seeming to think it does, is that you i) have a right to have anyone listen to what you say, and ii) have a right to have people agree with you, or at least 'respectfully disagree'. If you say something racist, someone saying so is not remotely violating your freedom of speech.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pcabezas)
    It really bothers me when people start using the term “freedom of speech” to try to excuse homophobic/racist opinions.

    I personally do not believe that saying that you are against gay people is an acceptable opinion, therefore, the term freedom of speech can't be applied in this cases.
    True but allowing these views to be expressed means they can be openly scrutinised and refuted so it can easily backfire on them. Trying to shut them up allows them to play the victim card.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    • Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA) make it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. This can have serious implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an offence;
    • Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. This offence is incredibly broad and has been used to address jovial, albeit misjudged communications – it carries huge implications for freedom of expression especially now that social media is so widely used. Section 127 has been used to prosecute a young man who tweeted his frustration about being unable to see his girlfriend due to airport closure. His tweets, which were made without intent to carry out their content or incite others to do so, resulted in his conviction for being a menace under the Act – thankfully that conviction has now been overturned;
    • In 2006 the Racial and Religious Hatred Act amended the POA to make it an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, to use threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred;
    • In 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act amended the POA to add an offence of using threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation;
    • The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalises ‘encouragement of terrorism’ which includes making statements that glorify terrorist acts, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment. It is an offence even if the person or group making the statement doesn’t intend to encourage terrorism. As the definition of terrorism is so wide this could criminalise people speaking out against repressive regimes anywhere in the world;
    • The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act provides for two new offences aimed at tackling sectarian division and associated violence in Scotland. Liberty has expressed concern that the broadly framed offences in this Act will unnecessarily sweep up individuals exercising their right to free speech who have no intention to commit or incite a criminal offence and in the event do not do so;
    There is your answer. It has nothing to do with society's trends, it has all to do with the fact that they limit it under the guise of stopping 'offensive and dangerous' behavior. Its very much a legal problem, not one to do with conforming with society.

    Society labeling people who blame everything on immigration racist isn't a limit on freedom of speech - it is freedom of speech being exorcised, and a good example of how far we have come. The police arresting citizens over racist remarks on the grounds of 'offence' however is dangerous and shows how far we have to go. There is no human right for freedom from being upset by other people's views, as bigoted as they may be.

    I quote Voltaire - I hate what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D_Fielding)
    Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why?
    Freedom of speech is freedom from fear of prosecution only.


    If you use the N-word/say the Holocaust was a myth/whatever and your employer fires you, all your friends ditch you and you generally turn into a loser, I don't have any sympathy for you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I swear to God if people keep misattributing that quote to Voltaire I will ****.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of speech:

    Say what you want, but it won't stop people from thinking you're an *******.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    I quote Voltaire - I hate what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it.
    He never said that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    I swear to God if people keep misattributing that quote to Voltaire I will ****.
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    He never said that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkPismPH3Ko
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not quite sure what that means. Is it a critique of the current state of free speech, or is it saying that's what free speech should be? If it's the latter, certainly not, because what that's saying is somebody cannot speak if it doesn't conform to the status quo. That is absurd, dangerous, and had we followed this principle throughout history, we would not be living in the free society we are today.

    The right to free speech means being able to voice our opinions and freely say what we please without having to worry about being punished for doing so or censored by the powers that be. We (should) have a right to disagree with each other, to voice unpopular opinions, and even to upset each other's sensibilities. This is free speech. What it is not is kowtowing to 'state-approved' opinion and pandering to the increasing number of fragile creatures that call themselves adults.

    You can't hide from reality forever.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Freedom of Speech is the freedom to express your beliefs as long as you're not infringing on other people's freedoms, e.g. the freedom to feel safe.
    That statement made me feel victimised, therefore I'm suing you ad infinitum.

    See how stupid your logic is?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    • Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA) make it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. This can have serious implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an offence;
    • Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. This offence is incredibly broad and has been used to address jovial, albeit misjudged communications – it carries huge implications for freedom of expression especially now that social media is so widely used. Section 127 has been used to prosecute a young man who tweeted his frustration about being unable to see his girlfriend due to airport closure. His tweets, which were made without intent to carry out their content or incite others to do so, resulted in his conviction for being a menace under the Act – thankfully that conviction has now been overturned;
    • In 2006 the Racial and Religious Hatred Act amended the POA to make it an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, to use threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred;
    • In 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act amended the POA to add an offence of using threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation;
    • The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalises ‘encouragement of terrorism’ which includes making statements that glorify terrorist acts, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment. It is an offence even if the person or group making the statement doesn’t intend to encourage terrorism. As the definition of terrorism is so wide this could criminalise people speaking out against repressive regimes anywhere in the world;
    • The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act provides for two new offences aimed at tackling sectarian division and associated violence in Scotland. Liberty has expressed concern that the broadly framed offences in this Act will unnecessarily sweep up individuals exercising their right to free speech who have no intention to commit or incite a criminal offence and in the event do not do so;
    There is your answer. It has nothing to do with society's trends, it has all to do with the fact that they limit it under the guise of stopping 'offensive and dangerous' behavior. Its very much a legal problem, not one to do with conforming with society.

    Society labeling people who blame everything on immigration racist isn't a limit on freedom of speech - it is freedom of speech being exorcised, and a good example of how far we have come. The police arresting citizens over racist remarks on the grounds of 'offence' however is dangerous and shows how far we have to go. There is no human right for freedom from being upset by other people's views, as bigoted as they may be.

    I quote Voltaire - I hate what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it.
    Finally, someone who made sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Evening)
    That statement made me feel victimised, therefore I'm suing you ad infinitum.

    See how stupid your logic is?
    There's a massive difference between getting annoyed with someone's opinion, and genuine hatred, harassment or abuse. Obviously, I am not suggesting that it should be illegal to have an opinion that others might find annoying. What I am saying is that it should be illegal to intentionally oppress somebody else through direct hatred, harassment or abuse. If I say "I don't think women should be allowed to have abortions", as bigoted as that might be, I should have a right to say that. What I should not be allowed to do is to target women who have had abortions and intentionally try to intimidate or otherwise abuse them. That is the difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    I swear to God if people keep misattributing that quote to Voltaire I will ****.
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    He never said that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do apologise. I have always thought Voltaire said that but indeed I am wrong. Thanks for pointing it out, and being civil about it


    If you are interested, the reason is because Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who did in fact pen the phrase, wrote a biography of Voltaire, and wrote it within 'The Friends of Voltaire' as a short illustration of his beliefs. Interesting fact
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    I do apologise. I have always thought Voltaire said that but indeed I am wrong. Thanks for pointing it out, and being civil about it


    If you are interested, the reason is because Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who did in fact pen the phrase, wrote a biography of Voltaire, and wrote it within 'The Friends of Voltaire'. Interesting fact
    Lmao, you're quite welcome.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    I do apologise. I have always thought Voltaire said that but indeed I am wrong. Thanks for pointing it out, and being civil about it


    If you are interested, the reason is because Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who did in fact pen the phrase, wrote a biography of Voltaire, and wrote it within 'The Friends of Voltaire' as a short illustration of his beliefs. Interesting fact
    Well it would be pretty rude to call you a **** for something that I myself have gotten wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone has the right to assembly and freedom of speech. The problem are the hate speech laws which give an excess of power to the government who now get to decide what discourse is allowed to legally take place. Take Paul Weston for example: arrested a year or two ago for making a public speech, previously penned by Winston churchill, due to supposedly inciting racial hatred. What he was in fact criticising was the Islamic faith and its related political ideology. The fine line between Islam/Judaism as faiths and Jews/Muslims as some kind of ethnicity means these groups get to shout racism and have dissidents shut down for opposing these forces gaining traction in the UK.

    It is quite clear that we do not have free speech in the UK, and it seems that the totalitarians who wish to see it remain suppressed are well represented here. As long as you remain safe from abuse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Freedom of Speech is the freedom to express your beliefs as long as you're not infringing on other people's freedoms, e.g. the freedom to feel safe.
    "freedom to *feel* safe"? that could mean anything though. surely it should be "freedom of security", not "freedom of emotional security"?

    freedom of speech in the UK these days has become untrendy - liberals are abandoning it for the sake of multicuturalism and utopian political-correctness perfectionism - it's essentially an exercise in reducing your recognition for diversity of expression/thoughts, so long as it enables diversity of culture/religion - it's basically "free speech for the dumb" because new religions in our society (e.g. islam) wouldn't thrive if freedom of speech (pure) reigned
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tweets-3512456
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 29, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.