Kilroy Watch

This discussion is closed.
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#301
Report 15 years ago
#301
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
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
ok - i just think that if you want to be tolerant and unbigoted - you should be so for everyone.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#302
Report 15 years ago
#302
(Original post by JSM)
ok - i just think that if you want to be tolerant and unbigoted - you should be so for everyone.
As aliel previously stated you have to draw the line somewhere JSM - there is a fine line between free speech and outright support for racial hatred by a govt. not intervening. The greatest evil is when good men do nothing (something like that)
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#303
Report 15 years ago
#303
(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.
You tend to skip from one thing to another, and do not stick to the question! Would hate to be your teaceher marking your essays You say:

"What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you..... "

I am sure i do not have to remind you that "silence" as you put it, is a form of expression. However, what point are you trying to make in response to mine? To endeavour to create freedom of speech is in itself a worthy cause. My last post attempted simply to underline the true difficulty and potential negativity in arguing for "total" freedom of speech (incl. in this sense hateful speech).

Again here:

"So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak."

If you read my post properly, I acknowledged the difficulties in attempting to take on the issue of right/wrong in a philosophical sense. Who am I to say people are wrong? I did not say anything of the type. Merely that psychologists, (who in fact do not rely on statistics only to determine conclusions but qualatitive research as well), observe strong correlations between 'fearful' individuals and those who vote for extremist parties!
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#304
Report 15 years ago
#304
Sorry! i will from now on change the colours in my posts!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#305
Report 15 years ago
#305
(Original post by aliel)
You tend to skip from one thing to another, and do not stick to the question! Would hate to be your teaceher marking your essays You say:

"What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you..... "

I am sure i do not have to remind you that "silence" as you put it, is a form of expression. However, what point are you trying to make in response to mine? To endeavour to create freedom of speech is in itself a worthy cause. My last post attempted simply to underline the true difficulty and potential negativity in arguing for "total" freedom of speech (incl. in this sense hateful speech).

Again here:

"So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak."

If you read my post properly, I acknowledged the difficulties in attempting to take on the issue of right/wrong in a philosophical sense. Who am I to say people are wrong? I did not say anything of the sense. Merely that psychologists, (who in fact do not rely on statistics only to determine conclusions but qualatitive research as well), observe strong correlations between 'fearful' individuals and those who vote for extremist parties!
my teacher says the same thing

ok so you wernt being anti free speech. well then, there is no problem. we should have as much free speech as is possible. OK - but even extremists should have free speech, because who decides who is allowed it.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#306
Report 15 years ago
#306
(Original post by JSM)
my teacher says the same thing

ok so you wernt being anti free speech. well then, there is no problem. we should have as much free speech as is possible. OK - but even extremists should have free speech, because who decides who is allowed it.
Problem is their speech causes racial tension and they can be charged with the offence of causing a disturbance to the peace and racially aggravated assault because assault encompasses threats of both a verbal and physical nature
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#307
Report 15 years ago
#307
(Original post by aliel)
Sorry! i will from now on change the colours in my posts!
Thanks, no problems
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#308
Report 15 years ago
#308
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Problem is their speech causes racial tension and they can be charged with the offence of causing a disturbance to the peace and racially aggravated assault because assault encompasses threats of both a verbal and physical nature

Not to mention that their hate-filled opinions, are based on little more than fearful opinion, they lack substance in most respects. JSM, subscribe to 'Index', a periodical dedicated to freedom of expression. It is a truly fantastic, and really opens your mind to the importance of freedom of expression as well as potential repurcussions.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#309
Report 15 years ago
#309
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Problem is their speech causes racial tension and they can be charged with the offence of causing a disturbance to the peace and racially aggravated assault because assault encompasses threats of both a verbal and physical nature
yes, well they can be done under inciting racial hatred, but should still be allowed to express their views.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#310
Report 15 years ago
#310
(Original post by aliel)
Not to mention that their hate-filled opinions, are based on little more than fearful opinion, they lack substance in most respects. JSM, subscribe to 'Index', a periodical dedicated to freedom of expression. It is a truly fantastic, and really opens your mind to the importance of freedom of expression as well as potential repurcussions.
I fear that JSM is a little confused as to the difference between safe freedom of speech, which is constructive, and unsafe speech which is rightly restricted for the safety of the bigots whose speech is riddled with pointless conjecture! By the way how left-wing would you say you are aliel?
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#311
Report 15 years ago
#311
(Original post by JSM)
yes, well they can be done under inciting racial hatred, but should still be allowed to express their views.
within their own communities yes - but when they drop their leaflets at the doors of ethnic minorities, not to put too fine a point on it, it is offensive and arrogant - or else plain stupid
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#312
Report 15 years ago
#312
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I fear that JSM is a little confused as to the difference between safe freedom of speech, which is constructive, and unsafe speech which is rightly restricted for the safety of the bigots whose speech is riddled with pointless conjecture! By the way how left-wing would you say you are aliel?
but who decides what is safe and what isn't. You cna't say that is not safe simply because you disagree with it.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#313
Report 15 years ago
#313
(Original post by JSM)
but who decides what is safe and what isn't. You cna't say that is not safe simply because you disagree with it.
Look at Bradford and Burnley and then come back to me
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#314
Report 15 years ago
#314
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Look at Bradford and Burnley and then come back to me
um i have heard what happened there but still?
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#315
Report 15 years ago
#315
(Original post by JSM)
um i have heard what happened there but still?
JSM it was the result of unsafe speeches by bigots that caused that mess
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#316
Report 15 years ago
#316
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
JSM it was the result of unsafe speeches by bigots that caused that mess
who decides what is unsafe
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#317
Report 15 years ago
#317
JSM i will provide you with an example of sorts.

Due to the Hutton Inquiry, there has been a dispense of a 30-year-rule and the disclosure of dozens of contemporary emails and documents from the heart of the government. Consequently, blowing a hole in the case against greater freedom of information.

The inquiry has also been uncomfortable for the media (the apparent mouthpieces for free speech), revealing much about the editors' relationships to their journalists. Secrecy, hidden agendas, freedom of information-all aspects which are important to our discussion-have been crucial in this inquiry!

But is has also exposed the clash between those who deal with words as a means of presentation, spin, exaggeration and half-truths, and those who believe words matter. In short: it's told us a great deal about the world we're living in.

There is an extremely delicate relatinship between law and its authority and freedom of expression. It's so important you recognise this, and stop claiming that freedom of speech should be absolute!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#318
Report 15 years ago
#318
(Original post by aliel)
JSM i will provide you with an example of sorts.

Due to the Hutton Inquiry, there has been a dispense of a 30-year-rule and the disclosure of dozens of contemporary emails and documents from the heart of the government. Consequently, blowing a hole in the case against greater freedom of information.

The inquiry has also been uncomfortable for the media (the apparent mouthpieces for free speech), revealing much about the editors' relationships to their journalists. Secrecy, hidden agendas, freedom of information-all aspects which are important to our discussion-have been crucial in this inquiry!

But is has also exposed the clash between those who deal with words as a means of presentation, spin, exaggeration and half-truths, and those who believe words matter. In short: it's told us a great deal about the world we're living in.

There is an extremely delicate relatinship between law and its authority and freedom of expression. It's so important you recognise this, and stop claiming that freedom of speech should be absolute!

and, what is wrong with absolute freedom of speech - who condemed the nazis within germany. There was not freedom of speech, so who could.
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#319
Report 15 years ago
#319
(Original post by JSM)
and, what is wrong with absolute freedom of speech - who condemed the nazis within germany. There was not freedom of speech, so who could.

:rolleyes: JSM you are now arguing from the other extreme, that of a totalitarian dictatorship. Where there was a monopoly of the media, and incidentally freedom of speech, in the hands of the Nazi state. Have I argued that freedom of speech needs to be absolutely restricted...no i have not. I have simply asked for an acknowledgement of the potential negative repurcussions of ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. That's all.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#320
Report 15 years ago
#320
(Original post by aliel)
JSM i will provide you with an example of sorts.

Due to the Hutton Inquiry, there has been a dispense of a 30-year-rule and the disclosure of dozens of contemporary emails and documents from the heart of the government. Consequently, blowing a hole in the case against greater freedom of information.

The inquiry has also been uncomfortable for the media (the apparent mouthpieces for free speech), revealing much about the editors' relationships to their journalists. Secrecy, hidden agendas, freedom of information-all aspects which are important to our discussion-have been crucial in this inquiry!

But is has also exposed the clash between those who deal with words as a means of presentation, spin, exaggeration and half-truths, and those who believe words matter. In short: it's told us a great deal about the world we're living in.

There is an extremely delicate relatinship between law and its authority and freedom of expression. It's so important you recognise this, and stop claiming that freedom of speech should be absolute!
Nice point - essentially JSM there would be widespread anarchy if there was absolute freedom of speech. However I would ask you to consider the implications of an emergency law to do with terrorism which is being discussed in the Commons. The premise is that in case of emergency the govt. would be able to bypass Parliament and rule the country in a totalitarian way. Do you see this as a way in which the present government could misuse such power? - for instance censorship of newspapers so that terrorists arent given important information etc. Is this not the way the likes of Napoleon and Hitler started out? Freedom of information and freedom of speech are linked to some extent but not exclusively so.
0
X
new posts
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

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (147)
45.94%
Pro-humanity (173)
54.06%

Watched Threads

View All