Should we limit free speech? (POLL)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by IAmNero
Simple question, should we limit free speech?
My opinion is no, but there seems to be some groups who feel that if your view offends then it should be limited. However, this goes against the very principals of free speech and what they are. It simply isn't democratic to limit free speech. It sounds authoritarian!
My opinion is no, but there seems to be some groups who feel that if your view offends then it should be limited. However, this goes against the very principals of free speech and what they are. It simply isn't democratic to limit free speech. It sounds authoritarian!
I think there are two fundamental problems with limitation of free speech.
1) the underlying assumption that people should be told by other people how to act.
What gives the government, say, a right to tell me what to say? Why can't I speak what I want? The minute you start restricting speech, which is a bsic human right, you can easily end up in the nightmarish stories of 1984 (Orwell) or Fahrenheit 451 (Bradbury), where a total, frightening dictatorship controls one almost completely.
2) the underlying assumption that I-am-a-victim
But not allowing a certain talk that you dislike you act as if you are made of glass, and can shatter in a moment. Everything will break you. You are in victim mentality, a self-centered, egotistical world which relies on one assumption, and on one assumption only: what is uncomfortable for me is unquestionably wrong.
But I question that. Why is it wrong?
What makes it bad, if someone curses you or swears at you or calls you names?
Certainly, it is unpleasant.
But that's a far cry from right and wrong, good and bad.
However, here is the time to make distinctions between speech which is uncomfortable for us to hear and speech which is abusive. Abuse can manifest in the physical, the oral or/and the emotional plane. In order to try and build a healthy society we try to limit abuse, to the best of our capabilities. Hate speech is abuse, and should not be tolerated. This is, of course, a certain limitation of the principle of free speech, but without it - just like without the rule that you cannot be physically abusive and beat up your wife - we would not have a healthy society.
It's difficult. You can't ban everything that offends anyone, our vocabulary would be limited. However, I believe that while the speech istelf should remain free, there should be suitable punishments and consequences for those who abuse this right (just as there are punishments for hate crimes etc).
Original post by Good bloke
So, you don't think it should be illegal to incite someone to kill someone else? You think it is OK to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre concourse? You think it would be fine to tell the world that your teacher is a thief and an active paedophile?
Of course there should be limits. The only question is how intrusive those limits should be. But that isn't your question.
Of course there should be limits. The only question is how intrusive those limits should be. But that isn't your question.
Freedom to incite murder has never been legal, its conspiracy to commit murder... inciting hatred was never needed.. And yes you should be allowed to shout fire, but if that is the cause of something else... there are laws that can be used already... For instance.. if someone broke there leg in a scramble for the door because of what you did, there are public order laws, and civil laws that can be persued.. you should not be charged for the word.. I should be allowed to call anyone what I wish, as long as I understand that to lie about someone and cause harm can be persued through civil court.. Criminal laws are based on common law.. Harm, injury or loss.. if what you did does none of these, it should not be a law... Hate crime legislation was never needed, heres why.. if you follow someone continually insulting them, with whatever words they choose, harassment laws exist.. if you assault someone for religion, colour creed... assault laws exist.. Why does attacking someone for there colour carry a greater punishment than attacking someone for there money? they are both hate crimes.. the legislation was not needed.. all it has done is create a law, for different people.. If you are in a group concidered vunerable, or a minority.. you are given extra protection even from opinions than offend you.. whereas if you are part of the majority or not vulnerable, its not a hate crime. Offense is subjective, you choose to be offended.. what offends you may not offend someone else.. Now they are started legslating offending someone as a crime, you have started a slope that has no end.. next comes banning of words, ideas, beliefs... Free speech died the day an offensive opinion became illegal.
Original post by books+beverages
It's difficult. You can't ban everything that offends anyone, our vocabulary would be limited. However, I believe that while the speech istelf should remain free, there should be suitable punishments and consequences for those who abuse this right (just as there are punishments for hate crimes etc).
Abuse how? you have free speech or you don't, there is no inbetween. Inciting murder already a crime, conspiracy to commit murder.. harrassment has law, assault has law.. hate crime legislation was not needed, except to create a class that extra protected from criticism than others.
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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 ?
