Freedom of speech? Watch

Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)

You can objectively say that you dont like the way for instance that Islam places its women as second class citizans however you cannot say that all muslims are terrorists. That would come under inciting religious hatred which is wrong as obviously there not.

You're right, of course, but a lot of people still do say such things, including on here. Freedom of speech should be a wide-reaching right, but there are certain things which go beyond legitimate opinion.
0
quote
reply
fox_force
Badges: 0
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
"Citizens of the Earth,
The Regime that is governing your Present has Not your best interest in mind, & the Mass Genocides it has been committing during the last two & a half millennia have failed to awaken U from the Lethargy that keeps U subject to their Will.

The ‘Globalization’ they are currently implementing, shall grant them total and absolute control over the life and destiny of each and every one of U.
Most of U have already seized to be individuals; robbed of your right to freedom of Self-Expression; brainwashed so thoroughly U are no more born as much as manufactured.
Your Natural Instincts are being systematically repressed, your Personal Potential suppressed and your Identity impressed by the Stigma of their values/ethics/dogmata to suit their purpose only: Cling-on to Power they usurped and maintain by way of key-player assassinations and mass genocides both, in full support of their all-fronts truth-inversion Propaganda. "
[Epsilon]
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
(Original post by fox_force)
"Citizens of the Earth,
The Regime that is governing your Present has Not your best interest in mind, & the Mass Genocides it has been committing during the last two & a half millennia have failed to awaken U from the Lethargy that keeps U subject to their Will.

The ‘Globalization’ they are currently implementing, shall grant them total and absolute control over the life and destiny of each and every one of U.
Most of U have already seized to be individuals; robbed of your right to freedom of Self-Expression; brainwashed so thoroughly U are no more born as much as manufactured.
Your Natural Instincts are being systematically repressed, your Personal Potential suppressed and your Identity impressed by the Stigma of their values/ethics/dogmata to suit their purpose only: Cling-on to Power they usurped and maintain by way of key-player assassinations and mass genocides both, in full support of their all-fronts truth-inversion Propaganda. "
[Epsilon]
There Is No Cabal
0
quote
reply
Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
(Original post by fox_force)
"Citizens of the Earth,
The Regime that is governing your Present has Not your best interest in mind, & the Mass Genocides it has been committing during the last two & a half millennia have failed to awaken U from the Lethargy that keeps U subject to their Will.

The ‘Globalization’ they are currently implementing, shall grant them total and absolute control over the life and destiny of each and every one of U.
Most of U have already seized to be individuals; robbed of your right to freedom of Self-Expression; brainwashed so thoroughly U are no more born as much as manufactured.
Your Natural Instincts are being systematically repressed, your Personal Potential suppressed and your Identity impressed by the Stigma of their values/ethics/dogmata to suit their purpose only: Cling-on to Power they usurped and maintain by way of key-player assassinations and mass genocides both, in full support of their all-fronts truth-inversion Propaganda. "
[Epsilon]
Are you actually a real-life alien invader, then? :eek:
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
(Original post by Agent Smith)
The freedom to scream abuse is an absolute. So is the freedom to respond in kind if on the receiving end of said abuse. Making either illegal will not stop them.
Equally making assault illegal hasn't stopped it, or so my last dauner into Glasgow on a Saturday evening tells me. Do you believe we should apply an enforceability test to law rather than simply have it as a reflection of morality?
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 11 years ago
#26
(Original post by Dionysus)
You're right, of course, but a lot of people still do say such things, including on here. Freedom of speech should be a wide-reaching right, but there are certain things which go beyond legitimate opinion.
Since when was freedom of speech only about voicing 'legitimate opinion'?

(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
You can objectively say that you dont like the way for instance that Islam places its women as second class citizans however you cannot say that all muslims are terrorists. That would come under inciting religious hatred which is wrong as obviously there not.
Neither am I a "knob" - but if someone was to state it as fact down the pub, I could not have them thrown in jail. Stating untruths is not, and should not be, a criminal offence.

Hatred is not illegal either, nor should it be, so it seems a revolting double standard to apparently criminalise incitement to something which is legally legitimate.

If someone is harmed by slander, we already have remedies through civil actions.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
If someone is harmed by slander, we already have remedies through civil actions.
"If someone is harmed". That's the point, really, isn't it. Too many laws these days adopt a pre-emptive approach rather than a responsive one; and while it's always a little difficult arguing with success, especially where the big crimes are involved, said approach is nevertheless morally questionable. If you want to stop murder, you don't outlaw everything that can conceivably be used as a weapon, from grenades, petrol bombs and guns via knives, crowbars and bricks up to arms, feet and teeth. You punish the murderers harder.

Similarly with "hate crime": We've already got the necessary laws for dealing with its results, because murder, GBH and ABH are already criminal offences. The way to deal with hate crime is not to criminalise the "act" (if so nebulous a term is even applicable) of "inciting" said attacks etc. (and in any case, even if such a preventative approach were called for there already exists a means of providing it in the concept of a Public Order Offence), but to increase the severity of the punishment meted out to those who commit it.
0
quote
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
(Original post by blackswan)
Yeah we're suppose to have 'freedom of speech' but because the country has to be so politically correct and the amount of mixed races here, it means you can't say anything, cant even fly the country's bloody flag in some places...ridiculous!
By law?! :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 11 years ago
#29
(Original post by Agent Smith)
"If someone is harmed". That's the point, really, isn't it. Too many laws these days adopt a pre-emptive approach rather than a responsive one; and while it's always a little difficult arguing with success, especially where the big crimes are involved, said approach is nevertheless morally questionable. If you want to stop murder, you don't outlaw everything that can conceivably be used as a weapon, from grenades, petrol bombs and guns via knives, crowbars and bricks up to arms, feet and teeth. You punish the murderers harder.
Spot on; the same woolly thinking, driven by irrational emotion, populism and paternalism, is the cause of the inclination towards authoritarianism that pervades the political debate of almost every Western nation. The debate is rarely - should we ban x, y or z, which might, in some cases, lead to a criminal act - but what is the most effective and intrusive manner of banning it?

Coupled with this, of course, is the argument that the availability of certain things - whether it be hate-filled demagoguery, Holocaust denial or narcotic drugs - makes people more likely to commit crime. The ease with which people sacrifice the liberty of others for their own pre-emptive protection is illustrative of the incompatibility, in my opinion, of unrestrained (ie, without formal limits on areas of competency) democracy and individual liberty. This specious argument that democratic governments are justly imbued with powers to regulate the verbal utterances of people within their borders pre-supposes that every man has a right only to speak insofar as he is benign to others; and insofar as he is critical of the status quo (for whatever reason), he should be in jail.
0
quote
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
(Original post by blackswan)
You don't think it's wrong that you cannot fly your own flag in the country it belongs because it may cause racial tension or bloody fights? it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Oh where did this happen then?
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
(Original post by Hengest)
Is freedom of speech an absolute right or should it be restricted by governments?
Here in the West we are told that we have freedom to speak our minds, but in reality we don't, for our governments restrict what we can say with hate speech laws; so we don't really have freedom of speech.
The only exeption is America, whose people are protected by the first amendment. So, do you want the freedom to speak your mind even if it causes offense to certain groups, or are you prepared to accept government censorship in the name of cracking down on.... "hate"?.
In America freedom of speech permits extremist Christians to shout abuse at the funerals of soldiers killed in combat - they hold up placards "God Hates Army ****" etc and shout abuse to the effect that the soldier was a "fag enabler" and "going straight to hell" etc. I'm talking about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

Freedom of speech is important up to the point that it becomes calculated abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm personally not interested in defending the freedom of speech of extremists who peddle hate and abuse. Other than this, yes freedom of speech should be supported. Extremist groups like the Nazi BNP should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews than extremist Islamicists should be allowed to call for the killing of infidels. The ironic thing is that these kinds of extremist groups who harp on about having their freedom of speech would be looking to stifle all debate should they be in power.
quote
reply
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
(Original post by Oswy)
In America freedom of speech permits extremist Christians to shout abuse at the funerals of soldiers killed in combat - they hold up placards "God Hates Army ****" etc and shout abuse to the effect that the soldier was a "fag enabler" and "going straight to hell" etc. I'm talking about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.
So? The problem here is not with free speech - it's with public property. You privatise the roads, the graveyards &c, and then the owner can choose to let or to evict whomever he likes from his property, just like a newspaper owner can choose to hire or fire any columnist. At the present there's conflict on whose right is dominant; the protestors or the funeral procession? It's quite arbitrary to decide on either side, when neither have a justified, exclusive claim to the land over which they're disputing. Privatise it and be damned.

(Original post by Oswy)
Freedom of speech is important up to the point that it becomes calculated abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm personally not interested in defending the freedom of speech of extremists who peddle hate and abuse. Other than this, yes freedom of speech should be supported. Extremist groups like the Nazi BNP should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews than extremist Islamicists should be allowed to call for the killing of infidels. The ironic thing is that these kinds of extremist groups who harp on about having their freedom of speech would be looking to stifle all debate should they be in power.
The BNP have called for "the gassing of Jews"? Some evidence, please, for this outlandish and libellous claim that the BNP directly ncite genocide.

You conflate two issues here; abuse and threats. It's perfectly acceptable to verbally abuse somebody, as long as they aren't compelled to listen to you. To threaten is totally different - then, you refuse them the right to walk away, and compel them to accept your aggressive act.
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
So? The problem here is not with free speech - it's with public property. You privatise the roads, the graveyards &c, and then the owner can choose to let or to evict whomever he likes from his property, just like a newspaper owner can choose to hire or fire any columnist. At the present there's conflict on whose right is dominant; the protestors or the funeral procession? It's quite arbitrary to decide on either side, when neither have a justified, exclusive claim to the land over which they're disputing. Privatise it and be damned...The BNP have called for "the gassing of Jews"? Some evidence, please, for this outlandish and libellous claim that the BNP directly ncite genocide...You conflate two issues here; abuse and threats. It's perfectly acceptable to verbally abuse somebody, as long as they aren't compelled to listen to you. To threaten is totally different - then, you refuse them the right to walk away, and compel them to accept your aggressive act.
It's only a problem of property to those obsessed with property - i.e. libertarians, so your argument is a bunch of *******s to me on that score.

I didn't claim that the BNP had publicly called for the gassing of Jews, I said they shouldn't be allowed to do it - a closer reading of my words might help you here.

I'm deliberately conflating abuse and threats because as far as I'm concerned, beyond a certain threshold, I'm not interested in defending either in terms of freedom of speech.
quote
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 11 years ago
#34
As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".
Absolutely. Don't forget the right to "burn my pet dogs alive in the back yard" - something these libertarians defend as a matter of 'principle' it seems. :rolleyes:
quote
reply
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
(Original post by Oswy)
It's only a problem of property to those obsessed with property - i.e. libertarians, so your argument is a bunch of *******s to me on that score.
Perhaps you might consider my argument a little more seriously; if nobody has exclusive use of a piece of land, then any decision which favours one over another is necessarily arbitrary - correct? So if certain things are "public property," then you can't make a principled decision about which group - funeral attendees or Baptist protesters - have the right of way.

(Original post by Oswy)
I didn't claim that the BNP had publicly called for the gassing of Jews, I said they shouldn't be allowed to do it - a closer reading of my words might help you here.
So you wouldn't complain if I wrote, "Extremist groups like the Communist Party should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews..."?

(Original post by Gilliwoo)
As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".
Hear, hear. The right to life (eg. no 'right to choose' for women - foetuses are living) - tick. The right to resist claims made against you (eg. oppose involuntary confiscation of your time or property / taxation) - tick. The right to personal and social liberty (ie. the right to do whatever you like with your body and your property as long as you don't do violence by others) - tick.

Also, free speech doesn't rely on "sufferance." That would be "right to be listened to." But the right to say whatever I want doesn't imply people have to listen.

I'm similarly sick of people claiming rights out of thin air - like the right to equal treatment of races on privately-owned buses, the right to go to smoke-free bars, the right to equal opportunities in jobs and the right to a "liveable" wage.

Wait a second - you're a "social liberal". You approve of all these things. You write well, but its totaly superficial and unsubstantial.

(Original post by Oswy)
I'm deliberately conflating abuse and threats because as far as I'm concerned, beyond a certain threshold, I'm not interested in defending either in terms of freedom of speech.
Could you define - in some objective, non-partisan sense - what the "certain threshold" is?
0
quote
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
Hear, hear. The right to life - tick. The right to resist claims made against you (eg. oppose involuntary confiscation of your time or property / taxation) - tick. The right to personal and social liberty (ie. the right to do whatever you like with your body and your property as long as you don't do violence by others) - tick.
The right to resist claims made against you amounts only to the thorough and objective treatment of competing claims. Opposing involuntary confiscation of your time or property/taxation is certainly a legitimate right, but the right to resist such claims, does not amount to their prima facie illeigitimacy.

Also, free speech doesn't rely on "sufferance."
Yes it does. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that everyone should listen to everything every other person has or wants to say. I take "inalienable" rights to be virtually axiomatic, I'd argue that free speech isn't.

That would be "right to be listened to." But the right to say whatever I want doesn't imply people have to listen.
Hardly a right then is it, considering a right is what you must claim from at least one other person. This makes it a self-given liberty, and that's thin ice where rights are concerned. My rule of thumb with rights is that if I can't take it away from you, don't insist I believe it exists.

I'm similarly sick of people claiming rights out of thin air - like the right to equal treatment of races on privately-owned buses, the right to go to smoke-free bars, the right to equal opportunities in jobs and the right to a "liveable" wage.
All these rights are consistent with the "claims made against you" and the "social liberty" right. They aren't derived from thin.
0
quote
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
(Original post by Oswy)
Absolutely. Don't forget the right to "burn my pet dogs alive in the back yard" - something these libertarians defend as a matter of 'principle' it seems. :rolleyes:
Pretty funny how you refused to reply to my post in that thread where I showed you how libertarianism can be compatible with animal rights...
0
quote
reply
RawJoh1
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 11 years ago
#39
Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?

---

Also - do the libertarians here believe that all land (or virtually all, presumably even the minimalist State has to have some offices, and naturally offices have to be on some land) should be privately owned? I was rereading a paper today which discusses this with particular respect to the issue of homelessness. I might start a thread on it in the philosophy subforum in the next few days, but clearly there's no point if the libertarians here don't subscribe to that sort of libertarianism.
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
(Original post by phawkins1988)
Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?
Well presumably the door belongs to the survivor, so such leafleting would be a breach of those? I also can't see why someone would be allowed to walk down a private street doing that, unless the owner shared similar views.

Also - do the libertarians here believe that all land (or virtually all, presumably even the minimalist State has to have some offices, and naturally offices have to be on some land) should be privately owned?
As much as is sensible; clearly the House of Lords and Commons shouldn't be put up for auction, but the government owns a lot of property and employs a lot of people; such far reaching bureaucratic governance needs a good trim once in a while.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

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

Do you like exams?

Yes (133)
18.4%
No (439)
60.72%
Not really bothered about them (151)
20.89%

Watched Threads

View All