Freedom of Speech: Your Opinions and Views.
Under Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 everyone has the right to the freedom of expression which carries certain duties and responsibilities:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
My questions to you are as follows: Do you think the legal model works in practice? Do you believe that this article is applied correctly and appropriately within society? Do you think both the legalities and morals behind free speech are floored? Do you believe some forms of information should be censored and if so by what means?
What are your opinions on the matter?
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
My questions to you are as follows: Do you think the legal model works in practice? Do you believe that this article is applied correctly and appropriately within society? Do you think both the legalities and morals behind free speech are floored? Do you believe some forms of information should be censored and if so by what means?
What are your opinions on the matter?
Scroll to see replies
People have freedom of speech according to that act, but in reality if you question Israel's policy on the Palestinians or any other hot topics such as homosexuality i.e. just be merely saying that you as an individual find it distasteful u'll be labelled this and that. or simply for stating u believe in God/ a higher power you'll be ridiculed and told to shut it.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
Original post by sdvds
People have freedom of speech according to that act, but in reality if you question Israel's policy on the Palestinians or any other hot topics such as homosexuality i.e. just be merely saying that you as an individual find it distasteful u'll be labelled this and that. or simply for stating u believe in God/ a higher power you'll be ridiculed and told to shut it.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
I concur with you to a certain extent. However, isn't your opinion based upon the fact that when one chooses to exercise the right to freely express an opinion they are subjected to the right of others to criticize or disagree with your comment/argument and so their confidence, drive or motivation to express themselves again is dampened? Surely, by your argument, the problem becomes one of a personal issue as opposed to an issue with society and the model?
Original post by sdvds
People have freedom of speech according to that act, but in reality if you question Israel's policy on the Palestinians or any other hot topics such as homosexuality i.e. just be merely saying that you as an individual find it distasteful u'll be labelled this and that. or simply for stating u believe in God/ a higher power you'll be ridiculed and told to shut it.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
I know some might say that people have the right to critize but when sharing ur thoughts gets you kicked off ur job and sent to prison or threats from government/ other individuals you do tend to shut it and thus give uup ur right to free speech.
The right to free speech doesn't protect you from what other private individuals think of your views. It simply means the government can't punish people for holding those views.
Should be allowed to the extent of it SPREADING hatred towards certain people.
E.G. "Immigrants are bad for out society" (View should be allowed to be publically expressed)
"Kill all immigrants" (Should not be expressed as it's spreading hatred)
But I kind of believe what I just said contradicts freedom of speech so I'd say that say whatever you want aslong as your willing to face up to the consequences. E.G. Don't go and racially abuse a black person because it's your "right" and not expect him to knock you out.
E.G. "Immigrants are bad for out society" (View should be allowed to be publically expressed)
"Kill all immigrants" (Should not be expressed as it's spreading hatred)
But I kind of believe what I just said contradicts freedom of speech so I'd say that say whatever you want aslong as your willing to face up to the consequences. E.G. Don't go and racially abuse a black person because it's your "right" and not expect him to knock you out.
Original post by TurboCretin
The right to free speech doesn't protect you from what other private individuals think of your views. It simply means the government can't punish people for holding those views.
I second that. Also, relevant XKCD comic:
In particular, note the alt-text of the comic
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
Freedom of free speech isn't really free because as mentioned by the above members speech that is hatred etc. WILL NOT be tolerated even though it is still speech. So in conclusion free speech does have understandabe limits, so with that being said surely it really isn't freedom, is it?
Original post by iuyscvbh
No such thing as full freedom. People here are always like this is a free country. But the government can arrest you for doing drugs, selling your body etc. So we don't fully have freedom, therefore it also applies to speech. If we all had full freedom we would be under anarchy....
What is the consensus on the censorship of certain types of information? Is it right? Where should censorship be applied? What are your opinions on the political and moral issues involved with censorship?
I think the 2006 hate speech act (essentially a blasphemy law) made a mockery of free speech in the UK.
Also, I am concerned with how heavy handed the police have been against "twitter trolls".
Also, I am concerned with how heavy handed the police have been against "twitter trolls".
Original post by TheRecorder
I concur with you to a certain extent. However, isn't your opinion based upon the fact that when one chooses to exercise the right to freely express an opinion they are subjected to the right of others to criticize or disagree with your comment/argument and so their confidence, drive or motivation to express themselves again is dampened? Surely, by your argument, the problem becomes one of a personal issue as opposed to an issue with society and the model?
I agree with your point but to say that the government is an individual and should be treated as such is not productive in this wonderful cyber debate is it?
The government isn't an individual it's there to ensure peoples right to free speech but if the same government is threatening people who exerice the right, then there is no ligitimate freedom of speech but only an illusion.
Plus to add to this. People in the UK are being imprisoned for speaking on what they belive in. I don't mean hatred etc but geniune concerns and issues that they give, we even have phone taping in the UK so people are increasingly afraid to be themselves thus speak their mind with friends and family over the phone.
We even have a body within the Polivce force that deal with social media EG censoring of social media comments, and on Youtube particular where they monitor and some times imprison people who don,t want to follow the herd.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Should be allowed to the extent of it SPREADING hatred towards certain people.
E.G. "Immigrants are bad for out society" (View should be allowed to be publically expressed)
"Kill all immigrants" (Should not be expressed as it's spreading hatred)
But I kind of believe what I just said contradicts freedom of speech so I'd say that say whatever you want aslong as your willing to face up to the consequences. E.G. Don't go and racially abuse a black person because it's your "right" and not expect him to knock you out.
E.G. "Immigrants are bad for out society" (View should be allowed to be publically expressed)
"Kill all immigrants" (Should not be expressed as it's spreading hatred)
But I kind of believe what I just said contradicts freedom of speech so I'd say that say whatever you want aslong as your willing to face up to the consequences. E.G. Don't go and racially abuse a black person because it's your "right" and not expect him to knock you out.
Free speech doesn't extend to hate speech.
Original post by sdvds
I agree with your point but to say that the government is an individual and should be treated as such is not productive in this wonderful cyber debate is it?
The government isn't an individual it's there to ensure peoples right to free speech but if the same government is threatening people who exerice the right, then there is no ligitimate freedom of speech but only an illusion.
Plus to add to this. People in the UK are being imprisoned for speaking on what they belive in. I don't mean hatred etc but geniune concerns and issues that they give, we even have phone taping in the UK so people are increasingly afraid to be themselves thus speak their mind with friends and family over the phone.
We even have a body within the Polivce force that deal with social media EG censoring of social media comments, and on Youtube particular where they monitor and some times imprison people who don,t want to follow the herd.
The government isn't an individual it's there to ensure peoples right to free speech but if the same government is threatening people who exerice the right, then there is no ligitimate freedom of speech but only an illusion.
Plus to add to this. People in the UK are being imprisoned for speaking on what they belive in. I don't mean hatred etc but geniune concerns and issues that they give, we even have phone taping in the UK so people are increasingly afraid to be themselves thus speak their mind with friends and family over the phone.
We even have a body within the Polivce force that deal with social media EG censoring of social media comments, and on Youtube particular where they monitor and some times imprison people who don,t want to follow the herd.
So do you believe there is a level of "double standards" to this right and how the law is applied/enforced?
Original post by felamaslen
I think the 2006 hate speech act (essentially a blasphemy law) made a mockery of free speech in the UK.
Why is that?
Are you talking about the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006?
Original post by kumon
The right to speak speech, is not the freedom of hate speech. That's how Nazis rose.
Would you mind expanding on the last comment, please. I'm intrigued.
Original post by TheRecorder
Would you mind expanding on the last comment, please. I'm intrigued.
Free speech is used to speak out against practices that hurt people, and unlike hate speech does not cause more hurt by attacking minorities.
Original post by kumon
Free speech is used to speak out against practices that hurt people, and unlike hate speech does not cause more hurt by attacking minorities.
So hate speech only effects the minorities?
Original post by pjm600
I don't believe an absolute freedom of speech is of benefit to society, but equally I think it's hard to draw a objective line between acceptable and non-acceptable speech.
So, do you propose a system of "free speech/expression" which has more than responsibilities/duties and has absolute limitations instead?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
