Freedom of speech? Watch

ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Since I'm gonna be leaving TSR next week. There was a question I wanted to ask people here and never really got the chance.

When cartoons were drawn of the prophet Muhammad and the Islamic world got pretty pissed off. They found it insulting to their culture and religion, which prohibits this. Yet people were talking about free speech, and how such lines should be crossed as long as others aren't harmed and Muslims shouldn't be a "special" group.

But what I never really understood, why is denying the holocaust a red line? Isn't that some sort of hypocrisy?

When do you think the limits of freedom of speech come? Or should there be limits? Aren't having limits a little bit hypocritical?
0
reply
Folderol
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
I think the illiberal laws of places like Germany are to be condemned. Holocaust denial should not be banned and I'm glad that we do not have such a law here. I wish there was a poll on how many people actually support the criminalisation of Holocaust denial - could someone quote me if they do find one?
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
(Original post by ma3eeni)
Since I'm gonna be leaving TSR next week. There was a question I wanted to ask people here and never really got the chance.

When cartoons were drawn of the prophet Muhammad and the Islamic world got pretty pissed off. They found it insulting to their culture and religion, which prohibits this. Yet people were talking about free speech, and how such lines should be crossed as long as others aren't harmed and Muslims shouldn't be a "special" group.

But what I never really understood, why is denying the holocaust a red line? Isn't that some sort of hypocrisy?

When do you think the limits of freedom of speech come? Or should there be limits? Aren't having limits a little bit hypocritical?
You're comparing a religion to a real historical event?
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aj12)
You're comparing a religion to a real historical event?
Regardless of whether its a valid comparison. The point of whether a red line to free speech should be put.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
(Original post by ma3eeni)
Regardless of whether its a valid comparison. The point of whether a red line to free speech should be put.
The line should be at statements that incite violence
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#6
(Original post by Aj12)
The line should be at statements that incite violence
Denying the holocaust doesn't. :confused:
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
(Original post by ma3eeni)
Denying the holocaust doesn't. :confused:
I know.

I was merely questioning your comparison of the two.
0
reply
hrickards
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by Aj12)
The line should be at statements that incite violence
Agreed, but only if those statements were purposefully meant to incite violence - e.g if Holocaust denier A denies the Holocaust peacefully and denier B uses him as inspiration to go and kill someone, denier A should be allowed to carry on.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
(Original post by hrickards)
Agreed, but only if those statements were purposefully meant to incite violence - e.g if Holocaust denier A denies the Holocaust peacefully and denier B uses him as inspiration to go and kill someone, denier A should be allowed to carry on.
I agree.

Ijust do not think the OP's comparison was a valid one
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by Aj12)
I agree.

Ijust do not think the OP's comparison was a valid one
I'm not saying that the two things are the same thing. I am not comparing the two. I am comparing two ideas. One banned from being made public. One isn't.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
(Original post by ma3eeni)
I'm not saying that the two things are the same thing. I am not comparing the two. I am comparing two ideas. One banned from being made public. One isn't.
Because of how different the two are. You cannot compare the two. It would be like me comparing the use of tanks to fight a war and running down protesters
0
reply
hrickards
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
(Original post by Aj12)
Because of how different the two are. You cannot compare the two. It would be like me comparing the use of tanks to fight a war and running down protesters
But if you were discussing banning the usage of tanks with civilians, you might ask whether the line should be drawn between using tanks to fight a war and using tanks to run down protestors. It's (to my mind anyway) a similar situation.
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#13
(Original post by hrickards)
But if you were discussing banning the usage of tanks with civilians, you might ask whether the line should be drawn between using tanks to fight a war and using tanks to run down protestors. It's (to my mind anyway) a similar situation.
Of course it is a similar situation.
0
reply
damidude
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by Aj12)
The line should be at statements that incite violence
It's up to the individual or to the group whether they choose to be violent or not.
0
reply
Folderol
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
I really don't think the OP is directly comparing the two things but wants to talk about the principles behind them. I'm a strong advocate of Mill's Harm Principle and so freedom of speech should not be limited for any reason except to avoid harm.

And before someone calls me up the vague definition of harm, read Mill's book
reply
Melanie-v
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
Germany is sensitive because my generation and the last feel as if they are still in some way being blamed for the actions of Germany circa 1940s.
It's like banning certain political parties - a lot of that was once from a desire to stop any chance of the past repeating itself, and is now because of sensitivity and fear of being called Nazi.
0
reply
Balagan
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
I think if one is to regard the absolute cesspool of ignorance and hate that the Israel-Palestine thread has just turned into, then it becomes obvious that freedom of speech is not always a good thing

on a more serious not however, I agree with the idea that anyone should be free to say anything as long as it doesnt incite racial hatred.

People should be free to criticise Islam, but they should not incite hatred towards muslims themselves.

regarding holocaust denial, I dont think there should be a law against it as this just helps the vermin and their propoganda. These people should be free to air their views and therefore get ridiculed and derided for it.
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#18
(Original post by Melanie-v)
Germany is sensitive because my generation and the last feel as if they are still in some way being blamed for the actions of Germany circa 1940s.
It's like banning certain political parties - a lot of that was once from a desire to stop any chance of the past repeating itself, and is now because of sensitivity and fear of being called Nazi.
But what about France?
0
reply
ma3eeni
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#19
(Original post by Balagan)
I think if one is to regard the absolute cesspool of ignorance and hate that the Israel-Palestine thread has just turned into, then it becomes obvious that freedom of speech is not always a good thing

on a more serious not however, I agree with the idea that anyone should be free to say anything as long as it doesnt incite racial hatred.

People should be free to criticise Islam, but they should not incite hatred towards muslims themselves.

regarding holocaust denial, I dont think there should be a law against it as this just helps the vermin and their propoganda. These people should be free to air their views and therefore get ridiculed and derided for it.
Completely agree.
0
reply
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by Balagan)
they should not incite hatred towards muslims themselves.
Why the hell not?

Why can't a guy get a poster and say "I hate Muslims" on it and hold it up?

I have just blogged about this topic vis-a-vis Elisabeth Wolff. You can see my views there.

Inciting hatred should not be a crime at all. I don't support bigotry and racism, but I support your right to say whatever you want.
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (236)
39.14%
No - but I will (41)
6.8%
No - I don't want to (45)
7.46%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (281)
46.6%

Watched Threads

View All