This discussion is closed.
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#281
Report 16 years ago
#281
(Original post by JSM)
but by protecting minorities you are protecting their rights of free speech and freedom of opinion by restricting that of others. Both groups are allowed to believe what they want.

A line has to be drawn. Is it right for people to stir up xenophobic feeling simply because they are racist? If that is the case..you are condoning racism. Which according to most people in society, is wrong. Of course there is a difference between freedom of speech (active) and freedom of opinion (passive). In America, the freedom of speech in regard to anti-bush behaviour is very much restricted,surely you have heard about this?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#282
Report 16 years ago
#282
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Surely in this model democracy you hold so dear, everyone should have total freedom of speech.
exaclty, therefore you can't restrict the BNP

btw there is no model democracy

"I may not agree with what a man has to say, but i will defend to the death his freedom to say it" - Voltaire
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#283
Report 16 years ago
#283
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Surely in this model democracy you hold so dear, everyone should have total freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is part of habeaus corpus but inciting racial hatred with comments such as those made by Silky is rightfully abhorred by the general public and punished correctly by the BeeB
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#284
Report 16 years ago
#284
(Original post by JSM)
exaclty, therefore you can't restrict the BNP

btw there is no model democracy

"I may not agree with what a man has to say, but i will defend to the death his freedom to say it" - Voltaire
Look at your original post.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#285
Report 16 years ago
#285
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Freedom of speech is part of habeaus corpus but inciting racial hatred with comments such as those made by Silky is rightfully abhorred by the general public and punished correctly by the BeeB
Please don't partronise me. I was responding to something JSM wrote. I am a full believer in freedom of speech. I just suggest that people don't complain at the consequences.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#286
Report 16 years ago
#286
(Original post by aliel)
A line has to be drawn. Is it right for people to stir up xenophobic feeling simply because they are racist? If that is the case..you are condoning racism. Which according to most people in society, is wrong. Of course there is a difference between freedom of speech (active) and freedom of opinion (passive). In America, the freedom of speech in regard to anti-bush behaviour is very much restricted,surely you have heard about this?
well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc.

So be it, i would be condoning racism, i will not coerce people into believing something that they do not believe in or force them to restric their views, because then i am sinking down to their level and deciding what other people should believe. So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#287
Report 16 years ago
#287
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Please don't partronise me. I was responding to something JSM wrote. I am a full believer in freedom of speech. I just suggest that people don't complain at the consequences.
Not patronising you - just elaborating on the ur point for the benefit of others
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#288
Report 16 years ago
#288
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Look at your original post.
doesn't the last line say both groups should have freedom, to say/believe whatever they want.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#289
Report 16 years ago
#289
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Please don't partronise me. I was responding to something JSM wrote. I am a full believer in freedom of speech. I just suggest that people don't complain at the consequences.
i was not complaining of the consequences of free speech, i am complaining of the consequences of exercising the (partial) right we have - ie you get sacked.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#290
Report 16 years ago
#290
(Original post by JSM)
well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc.

So be it, i would be condoning racism, i will not coerce people into believing something that they do not believe in or force them to restric their views, because then i am sinking down to their level and deciding what other people should believe. So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.
I cannot agree with you i am afraid. Freedom to incite racial hatred would lead to lynching and persecution of ethnic minorities
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#291
Report 16 years ago
#291
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Not patronising you - just elaborating on the ur point for the benefit of others
Ok.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#292
Report 16 years ago
#292
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I cannot agree with you i am afraid. Freedom to incite racial hatred would lead to lynching and persecution of ethnic minorities
thats what law and order is there for. police and army protect them as in america during the civil rights protests.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#293
Report 16 years ago
#293
(Original post by JSM)
thats what law and order is there for. police and army protect them as in america during the civil rights protests.
You are missing the point. Why should they live in fear for being?
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#294
Report 16 years ago
#294
(Original post by aliel)
A line has to be drawn. Is it right for people to stir up xenophobic feeling simply because they are racist? If that is the case..you are condoning racism. Which according to most people in society, is wrong. Of course there is a difference between freedom of speech (active) and freedom of opinion (passive). In America, the freedom of speech in regard to anti-bush behaviour is very much restricted,surely you have heard about this?
You are right - what is said behind closed doors is unrestricted - i.e. anti-bush opinion could be becoming fervent - yet this is not truly represented by the outcry of such opinion because it is restricted - remember when Bushy-tail came to our neighbourhood - he wasnt allowed to see how much people hate him - and no there was no threat on his life
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#295
Report 16 years ago
#295
(Original post by Bigcnee)
You are missing the point. Why should they live in fear for being?
agreed
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#296
Report 16 years ago
#296
(Original post by Bigcnee)
You are missing the point. Why should they live in fear for being?
they shouldnt, but i will protect the right of others to say what they want. They can say what they want but it is up to the individual to believe in what they want. The same laws protecting against racism could be used to suppress otehr political positions, for example the war on iraq was bad position.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#297
Report 16 years ago
#297
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
You are right - what is said behind closed doors is unrestricted - i.e. anti-bush opinion could be becoming fervent - yet this is not truly represented by the outcry of such opinion because it is restricted - remember when Bushy-tail came to our neighbourhood - he wasnt allowed to see how much people hate him - and no there was no threat on his life
um, he was allowed to see how much people hated him, didnt he make a comment to that effect.
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#298
Report 16 years ago
#298
(Original post by JSM)
well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc.

So be it, i would be condoning racism, i will not coerce people into believing something that they do not believe in or force them to restric their views, because then i am sinking down to their level and deciding what other people should believe. So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.
Despite me being openly left-wing in my views, the practicability of your proposition is extremely LOW. For example, you say:

"well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc."

However, have you not considered the repurcussions such a move? Countless times have accusations been made openly ie. in newspapers, only to be later disproved. Of course there are cases which the opposite true, and here, is where i think you need to clarify your opinions-where circumstantial evidence is provided. Now i will move on to yet more impracticalities of your suggestions. Are you not aware that it is seen in the 'public interest' in some spheres, to limit the amount of information (ie. in defence intelligence) allowed to enter the public domain. And thus many people have to sign binding contracts, stipulating that cannot duplicate their learned information (where's the freedom of speech)?

Your next statement:

"So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.."

In terms of right/wrong i think there is no need to argue here the philosophic problems with claiming either way. But what i do think has happened, is that it is more clear that these fearful people are in more in the wrong that right. Psychologists have long researched the consequences of fear and hate manifesting itself in their public behaviour ie. BNP voting!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#299
Report 16 years ago
#299
(Original post by aliel)
However, have you not considered the repurcussions such a move? Countless times have accusations been made openly ie. in newspapers, only to be later disproved. Of course there are cases which the opposite true, and here, is where i think you need to clarify your opinions-where circumstantial evidence is provided. Now i will move on to yet more impracticalities of your suggestions. Are you not aware that it is seen in the 'public interest' in some spheres, to limit the amount of information (ie. in defence intelligence) allowed to enter the public domain. And thus many people have to sign binding contracts, stipulating that cannot duplicate their learned information (where's the freedom of speech)?
so, people should be able to say what they want, contracts are different, as they are willingly signed. I would agree with you on defence intelligence - as people agree to that willingly. What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you.
(Original post by aliel)
In terms of right/wrong i think there is no need to argue here the philosophic problems with claiming either way. But what i do think has happened, is that it is more clear that these fearful people are in more in the wrong that right. Psychologists have long researched the consequences of fear and hate manifesting itself in their public behaviour ie. BNP voting!
so you can make the judgement that they are more in the wrong than in the right "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - despite me not being properly christian. Psychologists rely on statistics - lies, damned lies and statistics. So you want to restrict the free speech of a minority (BNP) to prevent the restriction of the free speech of another minority (eg those with racial differences). So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak. IT is a totalitarian view.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#300
Report 16 years ago
#300
(Original post by JSM)
so, people should be able to say what they want, contracts are different, as they are willingly signed. I would agree with you on defence intelligence - as people agree to that willingly. What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you.


so you can make the judgement that they are more in the wrong than in the right "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - despite me not being properly christian. Psychologists rely on statistics - lies, damned lies and statistics. So you want to restrict the free speech of a minority (BNP) to prevent the restriction of the free speech of another minority (eg those with racial differences). So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak. IT is a totalitarian view.
At this juncture i shall request that Aliel change to a darker colour so that we can follow her trail of thought more easily - and calm the discussion down JSM because we dont need to accuse each other of things which we did not set out to be or condone
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (210)
67.74%
No (100)
32.26%

Watched Threads

View All