Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should states be free to decide what speech is allowed? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Playing devil's advocate somewhat: should the elected representatives in national Parliaments be able to decide what speech is and is not allowed?

    People are saying that France criminalises holocaust denial, but supports Charlie Hebdo. But isn't it up to the French as to what speech they deem legal and illegal?

    I mean, this is what happens already: England decides what speech is allowed (fortunately most things), and what is not allowed (inciting hatred, threats, defamation, and so on).

    Views?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I can think of just a few contexts where freedom of speech should not apply (and are largely already against the law).

    - Threats of unlawful violence against individuals.

    - Falsely yelling "there's a bomb in this bag!!" on a plane, or anything similarly alarming but knowingly false in a crowded place. This can cause a panic in which people may get injured.

    - Fraud, scams and confidence tricks.

    - Gaslighting and similar forms of psychological abuse.

    - Anything that would put somebody in direct danger. For example, revealing the identity and location of somebody under witness protection.


    Beside those, anything and everything should be open for discussion, debate, praise, criticism, advocation, condemnation etc. Nothing should ever be barred because it might be "offensive" or other such childish nonsense. No state/government has the right take free speech or expression away.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    I can think of just a few contexts where freedom of speech should not apply (and are largely already against the law).

    - Threats of unlawful violence against individuals.

    - Falsely yelling "there's a bomb in this bag!!" on a plane, or anything similarly alarming but knowingly false in a crowded place. This can cause a panic in which people may get injured.

    - Fraud, scams and confidence tricks.

    - Gaslighting and similar forms of psychological abuse.

    - Anything that would put somebody in direct danger. For example, revealing the identity and location of somebody under witness protection.


    Beside those, anything and everything should be open for discussion, debate, praise, criticism, advocation, condemnation etc. Nothing should ever be barred because it might be "offensive" or other such childish nonsense. No state/government has the right take free speech or expression away.
    But that's exactly what they are doing in the list you've just mentioned. The state is choosing what speech is and is not allowed. Granted, there are good reasons for what you've mentioned being disallowed, but the fact remains that the state is still choosing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Playing devil's advocate somewhat: should the elected representatives in national Parliaments be able to decide what speech is and is not allowed?

    People are saying that France criminalises holocaust denial, but supports Charlie Hebdo. But isn't it up to the French as to what speech they deem legal and illegal?

    I mean, this is what happens already: England decides what speech is allowed (fortunately most things), and what is not allowed (inciting hatred, threats, defamation, and so on).

    Views?
    I don't support what most people would consider true free speech but i do believe in different free speech. I do for example feel that any terrorist sympathisers (i'm sure i've seen ISIS supporters protesting in London) should be viewed as enemies of the state and arrested for their sympathies and i do believe that those threatening violence should be fined, prosecuted and made to do community service however somebody making a rape joke on twitter should not get 4 years in prison for it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't support what most people would consider true free speech but i do believe in different free speech. I do for example feel that any terrorist sympathisers (i'm sure i've seen ISIS supporters protesting in London) should be viewed as enemies of the state and arrested for their sympathies and i do believe that those threatening violence should be fined, prosecuted and made to do community service however somebody making a rape joke on twitter should not get 4 years in prison for it.
    "Different free speech" lol

    If you don't support free speech for your enemies, you don't support free speech.

    As long as they are not directly inciting a crime, they should be free to say what they wish. Obviously many do incite crimes, and they should be punished. Tbh this isn't a very libertarian government, and I am uncomfortable with recent moves to slap control orders and other punishments on those who are suspected of having links to terrorism. Ironic at a time we are celebrating 800 years of Magna Carta. I thought we couldn't get any more authoritarian than the last Labour government but, by God, Mrs May is giving it her all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    should the elected representatives in national Parliaments be able to decide what speech is and is not allowed?
    That's their job and privilege as our elected representatives. It's our job to make sure they know our views.

    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    No state/government has the right take free speech or expression away.
    They have the absolute right to do anything we let them do.

    Anything else mean there is a governing body that can over-rule the government. Which means that governing body must be the real government.



    (Original post by Onde)
    I don't think holocaust denial should be a specific criminal offence
    In the UK, it is not. But some countries have identified that as a particular exception they need to legislate about. If we were 60 year old Germans or Austrian historians, for examples, we might better understand why it is important to the people of those countries.



    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I do believe that any terrorist sympathisers (I'm sure I've seen ISIS supporters protesting in London) should be viewed as enemies of the state and arrested for their sympathies
    Hamas was listed as a terrorist organisation. Should Palestinians protesting about their treatment be arrested? China is an important business partner. They say Tibetan separatists are terrorists. Should we start locking them up when they peacefully protest through London? Should Argentinians or Spaniards writing to our newspapers demanding British territory be given different nationality also be rounded up? What about republicans? What about people who say our previous Prime Minister Tony Blair is a war criminal for an illegal war against Iraq and should be arrested and tried - should these people be silenced?

    Who gets to decide what a "terrorist" is, and what "sympathising" is?

    It would mean, by the way, issuing arrest warrants for thousands (millions?) of American citizens for supporting the IRA. That won't go down very well with the Merkins when we start rounding up their citizens.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    "Different free speech" lol

    If you don't support free speech for your enemies, you don't support free speech.

    As long as they are not directly inciting a crime, they should be free to say what they wish. Obviously many do incite crimes, and they should be punished. Tbh this isn't a very libertarian government, and I am uncomfortable with recent moves to slap control orders and other punishments on those who are suspected of having links to terrorism. Ironic at a time we are celebrating 800 years of Magna Carta. I thought we couldn't get any more authoritarian than the last Labour government but, by God, Mrs May is giving it her all.
    Don't get me wrong, i don't think you should sent to prison for calling a frog a frog (replace with ethnicity or country) but these people should not be tolerated. British born or not, if you support enemies of the state then you should to coin a phrase be 'hung, drawn and quartered'. So in that sense i manage to be both more liberal and more harsh than the current government.

    May is a much more traditional conservative than the Cameroons but there's every chance she'll be painted as Thatcher 2.0 and go against Boris for the leadership.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    That's their job and privilege as our elected representatives.
    Hamas was listed as a terrorist organisation. Should Palestinians protesting about their treatment be arrested? China is an important business partner. They say Tibetan separatists are terrorists. Should we start locking them up when they peacefully protest through London? Should Argentinians or Spaniards writing to our newspapers demanding British territory be given different nationality also be rounded up? What about republicans? What about people who say our previous Prime Minister Tony Blair is a war criminal for an illegal war against Iraq and should be arrested and tried - should these people be silenced?

    Who gets to decide what a "terrorist" is, and what "sympathising" is?

    It would mean, by the way, issuing arrest warrants for thousands (millions?) of American citizens for supporting the IRA. That won't go down very well with the Merkins when we start rounding up their citizens.
    To my knowledge only the IRA have actually committed terrorist attacks in the UK on that list and Blair already legally sacrificed justice for peace.

    A terrorist is somebody who commits harm against the British state in the name of a group or cause. Sympathising would be public displays of support.

    Clear this would not apply retrospectively and only apply to those living in the UK.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    To my knowledge only the IRA have actually committed terrorist attacks in the UK
    Has ISIS done one here yet? Can we support them?

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Blair already legally sacrificed justice for peace.
    My interpretation - and that of many nations with arrest warrants out for him - is that he and Bush illegally sacrificed peace for justice.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    A terrorist is somebody who commits harm against the British state in the name of a group or cause.
    That's a very broad brush. So, the bankers, then? Or the unions?

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Sympathising would be public displays of support.
    So Ghandi was a terrorist who should have been banged up when he visited the UK?

    The "public display of support" would include a group handing out leaflets explaining why a particular group are doing what they are doing. Listening is the first step in resolving conflict. Refusing a voice is often the first step in creating a terrorist group.

    The rules you are proposing could be used and abused to make the BNP and UKIP and Plaid Cymru and the SNP illegal (Theresa May probably would if she could) - do that and the National Front and its like will reappear.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Has ISIS done one here yet? Can we support them?

    My interpretation - and that of many nations with arrest warrants out for him - is that he and Bush illegally sacrificed peace for justice.

    That's a very broad brush. So, the bankers, then? Or the unions?

    So Ghandi was a terrorist who should have been banged up when he visited the UK?

    The "public display of support" would include a group handing out leaflets explaining why a particular group are doing what they are doing. Listening is the first step in resolving conflict. Refusing a voice is often the first step in creating a terrorist group.

    The rules you are proposing could be used and abused to make the BNP and UKIP and Plaid Cymru and the SNP illegal (Theresa May probably would if she could) - do that and the National Front and its like will reappear.
    It's not a stretch to lump ISIS with Al Quada.

    Well i was talking about Ireland. I don't agree with about Bush and Blair.

    Certainly tempting to prosecute Scargill on such charges but the bankers never committed a violent act. At any rate there would be clearer definitions in law.

    Ghandi did not live hear, a travel ban could have easily been issued if we so wished. I'd probably say yes, it's encouraging people to side with ISIS ect.. there is a place for debate but active propaganda should not be tolerated. There's also another word for it.. appeasement.

    That would be affront to democracy, clearly there would be clearer definitions in law.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That would be affront to democracy, clearly there would be clearer definitions in law.
    If someone takes a stand at a rally in London to explain why there are people committing violent acts in another country, wouldn't the affront to democracy be to refuse them a voice?


    Some years ago an author, resident in the UK, wrote an article about how people from country 'X' are taking over the land and properties of his home country 'Y'. As a consequence there were extremist groups reacting with violence in 'Y', such as blowing up the settler's homes including those of the members of the government of country 'X', UK government minister's homes and seemingly even tried to kill a member of our Royal Family.

    The people of 'Y' are indigenous to the area and had tried to complain to the government of 'X' and to UNESCO. They said they were being displaced by the incomers and that this was not fair.

    This author was saying they too thought something should be done and proposed re-occupying the property and land taken by the incoming settlers.

    Should the author have been silenced and arrested?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Don't get me wrong, i don't think you should sent to prison for calling a frog a frog (replace with ethnicity or country) but these people should not be tolerated. British born or not, if you support enemies of the state then you should to coin a phrase be 'hung, drawn and quartered'. So in that sense i manage to be both more liberal and more harsh than the current government.
    Choosing different places to be illiberal doesn't make you more liberal in any meaningful sense.

    Personally I think the British state is strong enough to deal with a few nutters with placards without overturning its fine liberal heritage, but that's just me.

    May is a much more traditional conservative than the Cameroons but there's every chance she'll be painted as Thatcher 2.0 and go against Boris for the leadership.
    I hear this but, other than that she's a strong woman, I really don't see how she's like Maggie. She certainly can't be described as a Thatcherite and Thatcher was, if nothing else, a woman of cast-iron principle. I don't think the same can be said of May.

    For all May's support in some quarters, there's some quite substantial anti-May sentiment in the party, which is likely to count against her ambitions. She's far too authoritarian for the more liberal parts of the party, and she has shown herself on several occasions to be disloyal and scheming.

    Were I to ever vote against the Conservatives, she would be the reason.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Playing devil's advocate somewhat: should the elected representatives in national Parliaments be able to decide what speech is and is not allowed?

    People are saying that France criminalises holocaust denial, but supports Charlie Hebdo. But isn't it up to the French as to what speech they deem legal and illegal?

    I mean, this is what happens already: England decides what speech is allowed (fortunately most things), and what is not allowed (inciting hatred, threats, defamation, and so on).

    Views?
    No. Never should the state be allowed to dictate what can be said or what can't be said or what is truth or what is not truth. Where there is no manipulation,
    the truth always comes out. We live in a world of manipulation "perception is reality". There is always an agenda behind controlling speech.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    But that's exactly what they are doing in the list you've just mentioned. The state is choosing what speech is and is not allowed. Granted, there are good reasons for what you've mentioned being disallowed, but the fact remains that the state is still choosing.
    Restriction of speech in those cases is not really denial of freedom speech. For example in a confidence trick or fraud, speech is just the tool to commit theft. So theft is the issue. Someone falsely claiming there is a bomb on a plane
    Is effectively committing an act of terrorism. Speech is just the medium.

    When there is no violation of reasonable expectations by speech it should be allowed. And I do not consider "hate laws" to be reasonable. Some word phrase, concept or interpretation is "hate" because the government says so. Ridiculous concept.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    The state should have no power to limit the free speech of individuals ever.

    Direct threats however are an act of agression, so nothing to do with speech.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    A terrorist is somebody who commits harm against the British state in the name of a group or cause.
    Such a definition of terrorism removes any morally compelling capacity of it and makes it almost entirely a political crime.

    Perhaps more significantly, it would mean more or less every state was founded on acts of terrorism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    And I do not consider "hate laws" to be reasonable. Some word phrase, concept or interpretation is "hate" because the government says so. Ridiculous concept.
    "Aha! So you are an apologist for hate crime. That is as bad as hate crime. Therefore, you are a terrorist. The government should arrest you and confiscate your computers and telephone and go through all the records of everything you have written on a fishing expedition for anything else pro-hate. You'll get 5 to 10 years for posting that on the internet, comrade."

    (For those slow on the uptake, I am agreeing with the MKultra101.)

    And that's how society goes all to hell: banning free speech by claiming it is as bad as a physical crime.

    Even 5 year olds know "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". What goes wrong with some people when they grow up?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Such a definition of terrorism removes any morally compelling capacity of it and makes it almost entirely a political crime.

    Perhaps more significantly, it would mean more or less every state was founded on acts of terrorism.
    That may be true but we have a legal remit, Islamists don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes because thiz is what the state does...

    I dont think holocausr denial equates with the anti-mohammed pics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    "Aha! So you are an apologist for hate crime. That is as bad as hate crime. Therefore, you are a terrorist. The government should arrest you and confiscate your computers and telephone and go through all the records of everything you have written on a fishing expedition for anything else pro-hate. You'll get 5 to 10 years for posting that on the internet, comrade."

    (For those slow on the uptake, I am agreeing with the MKultra101.)

    And that's how society goes all to hell: banning free speech by claiming it is as bad as a physical crime.

    Even 5 year olds know "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". What goes wrong with some people when they grow up?
    a lulzworthy post if there ever was one..
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.