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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    We're talking about speech not publishing classified data


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lmfao do you know all that is included under freedom of speech?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    paul514

    "
    "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression."

    just a quick Google for ya, ya know? :top:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrsjenner)
    lmfao do you know all that is included under freedom of speech?
    The clue is the word speech.

    We're talking about people talking and writing

    We aren't talking about releasing classified government data.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The clue is the word speech.

    We're talking about people talking and writing

    We aren't talking about releasing classified government data.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    wtf are you even...:indiff:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Speech=press as well. Paul said freedom of speech is just about speech as in speaking. Fool.
    Looks like someone wants fascism :fuhrer:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrsjenner)
    wtf are you even...:indiff:
    Evidently not a complete idiot like yourself


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrsjenner)
    Speech=press as well. Paul said freedom of speech is just about speech as in speaking. Fool.
    Looks like someone wants fascism :fuhrer:
    I said writing too idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Evidently not a complete idiot like yourself


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think the idiot here is you :rofl: literally lol'd at "We're talking about people talking and writing" I can't even...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I said writing too idiot


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Awwwwuh he called me a idiot :cry:

    you said writing in your later posts, after you said "speech is speech, talking." That bull ****. Don't try it, backpedaling and then namecalling.

    You're 59 years old and still playing these games "idiot." :toofunny:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I think the idiot here is you :rofl: literally lol'd at "We're talking about people talking and writing" I can't even...
    You can't even......

    Make a point


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrsjenner)
    Awwwwuh he called me a idiot :cry:

    you said writing in your later posts, after you said "speech is speech, talking." That bull ****. Don't try it, backpedaling and then namecalling.

    You're 59 years old and still playing these games "idiot." :toofunny:
    Learn to read no wonder you're so stupid, as for insults you started lol




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The only speech that should not be tolerated is speech that threatens others' right to free speech. But that becomes paradoxical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    You can't even......

    Make a point


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by paul514)
    Learn to read no wonder you're so stupid, as for insults you started lol




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    We're talking about speech not publishing classified data


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Freedom of speech as a right is used synonymously to freedom of expression. You'll see newspapers and whatnot using the freedom of speech excuse to breach others' privacy. That's one of the many, again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Are you being serious?

    You'd be fine with people being allowed to publish classified information which may severely harm the nation's safety? You'd be fine with powerful people using "freedom of speech" to harass, oppress or slander individuals through the media? You'd be fine with people being allowed to manipulate others who want to keep their privacy? And these are just three of the many, many examples.

    What you're advocating is freedom of tyranny, not freedom of speech. Some rights have to be qualified if other rights are to be respected.
    I *knew* this was coming...
    I said "harm". offence =/= harm, let's firstly get that out of the way. freedom of speech is all about speech that doesn't cause a loss of freedom (e.g. harm) - that is an elementary concept that you ought to be aware of by now...
    next, "people being allowed to publish classified information which may harm the nation's safety" - that depends on whether it is likely to "harm" individuals. that would need to be interpreted by a court. if a court can interpret information leadin to harm to the nation's individuals as a security concern, then that would obviously constitute potential harm to individuals.
    "harassment"? depends on whether it restricts the negative liberty of the individual; if we're talking about yelling or other nuisance acts (which really can relate to property rights here) then that's a form of harm if it involves a harm to the individual's property value and their ability to derive the value of their earned property (in the case of nuisance, at least in clear cases) but if we're talking about sexual harassment, then ****ing no way is that "harm". that is ridiculous. being annoying, also, isn't "harm".
    slander? depends on whether it causes the harm to one's earnings and whether it's a lie or not - if it creates a situation whereby an individual cannot raise the funds to allow for the truth to be told in their defence, then that is a harm of earnings, if it causes a loss of money or valuable/earned reputation.
    "manipulation to keep privacy"< I don't even know what you're referring to there - you'll need to be more specific

    basically, offence or annoyance is not harm - only harm towards the body/property is "harm" is a objective sense. if we're talking about mental/psychological trauma caused by words constituting bodily (brain) harm which requires therapy to correct, then that would require a substantial amount of evidence *and* reasonable conditions satisfied e.g. if the "victim" was easily offended to the point of absurdity then that shouldn't apply seeing as it is more their fault than the expressor's
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I *knew* this was coming...
    I said "harm". offence =/= harm, let's firstly get that out of the way. freedom of speech is all about speech that doesn't cause a loss of freedom (e.g. harm) - that is an elementary concept that you ought to be aware of by now...
    I *knew* you didn't know what the right actually is, lol.Freedom of expression: 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.As you can see, the right cannot under any circumstances be unqualified, because it results to whatever I said before. (So much for the elementary concept lol...).


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    next, "people being allowed to publish classified information which may harm the nation's safety" - that depends on whether it is likely to "harm" individuals. that would need to be interpreted by a court. if a court can interpret information leadin to harm to the nation's individuals as a security concern, then that would obviously constitute potential harm to individuals.
    I'm not referring to the courts. I'm referring to people knowing stuff they shouldn't and then releasing them to the press. This may include defence strategies, weapons and whatnot.

    You said you wanted an absolutely unqualified freedom of speech rights - well, that cannot happen.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "harassment"? depends on whether it restricts the negative liberty of the individual; if we're talking about yelling or other nuisance acts (which really can relate to property rights here) then that's a form of harm if it involves a harm to the individual's property value and their ability to derive the value of their earned property (in the case of nuisance, at least in clear cases) but if we're talking about sexual harassment, then ****ing no way is that "harm". that is ridiculous. being annoying, also, isn't "harm".
    slander? depends on whether it causes the harm to one's earnings and whether it's a lie or not - if it creates a situation whereby an individual cannot raise the funds to allow for the truth to be told in their defence, then that is a harm of earnings, if it causes a loss of money or valuable/earned reputation.
    "manipulation to keep privacy"< I don't even know what you're referring to there - you'll need to be more specific

    basically, offence or annoyance is not harm - only harm towards the body/property is "harm" is a objective sense. if we're talking about mental/psychological trauma caused by words constituting bodily (brain) harm which requires therapy to correct, then that would require a substantial amount of evidence *and* reasonable conditions satisfied e.g. if the "victim" was easily offended to the point of absurdity then that shouldn't apply seeing as it is more their fault than the expressor's
    You wot? You think having your privacy breached against your will or releasing info that can potentially harm someone (even by your definition) is not enough to qualify governmental interference?

    So, governments must only intervene when someone suffers bodily harm?

    In the same way, I think people should be allowed weapons and police should not interfere unless someone has been shot. Sounds absolutely logical, eh?

    Again, you said you wanted absolutely unqualified freedom of speech - well, now you've added some qualifications. The contradictions only prove my point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I *knew* you didn't know what the right actually is, lol.Freedom of expression: 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.As you can see, the right cannot under any circumstances be unqualified, because it results to whatever I said before. (So much for the elementary concept lol...).
    you're quoting law, not legitimate philosophy. law is usually *******ised philosophy/practical ethics and states violate freedom of speech constantly - why should I take this as authoritative? in fact, just from skimming your mass of text I notice that it allows for negating free speech for "national security", "public safety", "protection of reputation" etc - what does national security even mean specifically? it can literally mean anything. next, people aren't entitled to a good reputation. is hitler entitled to a protection of reputation, for instance?


    I'm not referring to the courts. I'm referring to people knowing stuff they shouldn't and then releasing them to the press. This may include defence strategies, weapons and whatnot.
    yes, you're referring to "weapons" so obviously that's going to potentially lead to harm in a literal sense if, for instance, this debriefing allows terrorists to get dangerous weapons which they are likely to use...

    You said you wanted an absolutely unqualified freedom of speech rights - well, that cannot happen.
    the only qualification I recognise to be consistent with the nature of liberty is not causing "harm" seeing as harm infringes liberty.

    You wot? You think having your privacy breached against your will or releasing info that can potentially harm someone (even by your definition) is not enough to qualify governmental interference?
    depends what you're talking about - if we're talking about contracts where somebody has a contractual entitlement to privacy then that would be protected. but if we're talking about, let's say, the spreading of the truth about somebody which becomes public, then how is that "harm"? is that a violation of the liberty of contract? what liberty is infringed that can be justified? people knowing things I don't want them to know, without some kind of promise involved where people are contractually obliged to not spread around something they promised not to, isn't a violation of freedon, and then it's arbitrary to suggest that this violates a right when it is merely an inconvenience. information isn't property.

    So, governments must only intervene when someone suffers bodily harm?
    no I said "harm" as in harm to the body or property...

    In the same way, I think people should be allowed weapons and police should not interfere unless someone has been shot. Sounds absolutely logical, eh?
    why shouldn't people be allowed weapons (assuming you're not talking about WMDs)? if there is evidence that some individual will use them for criminal purposes then that is the time to confiscate such weapons, but not just straight off the bat. that's not proportional at all.

    Again, you said you wanted absolutely unqualified freedom of speech - well, now you've added some qualifications. The contradictions only prove my point.
    what contradictions?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you're quoting law, not legitimate philosophy. law is usually *******ised philosophy/practical ethics and states violate freedom of speech constantly - why should I take this as authoritative? in fact, just from skimming your mass of text I notice that it allows for negating free speech for "national security", "public safety", "protection of reputation" etc - what does national security even mean specifically? it can literally mean anything. next, people aren't entitled to a good reputation. is hitler entitled to a protection of reputation, for instance?
    I'm sorry for relying on actual material and not cheap thoughts... lol.

    Ah I see, you're one of those rebellious people were the law is at fault for everything and shouldn't always be followed eh? Do you prefer tribal community systems too?

    How is Hitler relevant? Like at all? Everyone knows of Hitler - there's no freedom of speech involved.

    And again, I never said that freedom of speech should not be protected. I'm simply being mature enough to accept that there must be limits to it.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes, you're referring to "weapons" so obviously that's going to potentially lead to harm in a literal sense if, for instance, this debriefing allows terrorists to get dangerous weapons which they are likely to use...
    So, what you're saying is that there should be limits to freedom of speech, just like the Convention says. Coming to my point?

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    the only qualification I recognise to be consistent with the nature of liberty is not causing "harm" seeing as harm infringes liberty.

    depends what you're talking about - if we're talking about contracts where somebody has a contractual entitlement to privacy then that would be protected. but if we're talking about, let's say, the spreading of the truth about somebody which becomes public, then how is that "harm"? is that a violation of the liberty of contract? what liberty is infringed that can be justified? people knowing things I don't want them to know, without some kind of promise involved where people are contractually obliged to not spread around something they promised not to, isn't a violation of freedon, and then it's arbitrary to suggest that this violates a right when it is merely an inconvenience. information isn't property.
    Harm can mean many things. I have a right to privacy. If I want to keep that privacy, it's my right to do so. What you're saying is that, since this is not harmful in a bodily way, people should be allowed limitless freedom of expression.

    Thus, you agree that if someone has taken a photo of me swimming naked in my home pool, they're allowed to publish it so everyone can see.

    You also agree that if someone knows something about me which I do not want others to know due to its importance, they can go on and say it without repercussions.

    And so on. How can you even think that this is logical? My right to life is much more important than your right of freedom of speech, whether you like it or not. Your stance is simply immature - you're thinking so short term and ignore the wider implications of allowing people to say whatever they want without limits.

    If the courts cannot interfere with someone's right to speech, those afflicted by such cheap talkers will resolve things differently -and I mean this as a huge negative-. I do not want to live in such a society, and nor do most normal people.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no I said "harm" as in harm to the body or property...



    why shouldn't people be allowed weapons (assuming you're not talking about WMDs)? if there is evidence that some individual will use them for criminal purposes then that is the time to confiscate such weapons, but not just straight off the bat. that's not proportional at all.



    what contradictions?
    What makes you think that personal data is not property? You really think property refers to tangible things alone???

    These contradictions above. Once you say absolutely unqualified freedom of speech, then you say it should be qualified when harm and property are involved. Well well...

    So, guns should be allowed? Because USA has been a great example?

    Tell me please, are you a UKIP voter? UKIP voters have such similar mentalities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is ridiculous


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Someone here mentioned how Hitler is not entitled to a good reputation. We all know this, but it's funny that you mention him because he is an example of an individual who incited hatred towards entire religious groups, ethnicities and so forth using his right to freedom of expression. This is actually a good example of times when free speech should be limited.

    Because hate speech exactly that; the incitement of violence or hatred towards a group on the basis of sex, sexuality, ethnicity, religious beliefs and a number of other protected characteristics. Unlimited free speech means that you're infringing the rights of others to safety and security.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.