This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should there be legal limits on our freedom of expression when using social media?

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Good point but what about the rights of others not to be subject to offensive or abusive speech so as not to deprive them of their human rights. It seems to me that the law needs the find a way to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect the rights of others, in this sense it is not an absolute unregulated right.

Who defines "offensive" and "abusive"? At the moment it is a minority of very loud so-called 'liberals' / 'progressives' that persecute those who disagree with them, mass report them, doxx them, try to no-platform people, harass people and their employers.

Reply 41

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Absolutely, authoritarian government is needed ASAP

Reply 42

ErasistratusV

19

I believe that so long as you are not spreading terrorism or similar, freedom of speech should be held as sacrosanct in this country.

If people want to hold obscure, illogical or downright unpleasant views that is their concern: they will be treated by the rest of society as they always have been.

You cannot legislate against what people think, so legislating against what they say is largely pointless.

Reply 43

mariaspanou

1

ye it shld be restricted
when i was a student there a lecturer was talkin about his dik in class and nthin happened
was horible

Reply 44

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Who decide the composition of the authoritarian government? And what effect would that have on our treasured Western democratic values?

Reply 45

mariaspanou

1

Original post by mariaspanou

ye it shld be restricted
when i was a student there a lecturer was talkin about his dik in class and nthin happened
was horible

not jokin btw

Reply 46

mariaspanou

1

an when I was there this lady kept sayin she was boss of law but online it says it some bald bloke lmao

Reply 47

DrMikeHuntHertz

16

We can't have freedom of speech or else people might get offended.

Reply 48

hehwhat

12

I do have to admit that there are likely to be exceptions to this, but my general feeling on this matter is that criticism, both online and in politics, works best if it is directed at policies and opinions, as opposed to individuals, especially towards things they can not control. I think this is where the limits come in, inforced by rules and regulations where, in an ideal world it would just be being nice. However, without the ability to openly criticise, the quality of society and such would rapidly decline, but I do think that the best will be 'intelligent' criticism, ie, commenting on Boris Johnson's stance on brexit as opposed to his hair.

Reply 49

EmperorTortoise

15

I think social media should be got rid of altogether. It is only a simulation of real human interactions and people use it as a substitute.

Reply 50

noey123

16

I'm all for freedom of speech but it doesn't apply to some muslims tho.

for example if someone says they want sharia law in this country shouldn't they be able to say that without being called a hater? are they not allowed to have that opinion? how come individuals such as tommy robinson can talk so much crap about islam and muslims and that is done under freedom of speech. he is called a hero for being true to himself etc. Freedom of speech doesn't exist. end of.

Reply 51

That'sGreat

21

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Good point but what about the rights of others not to be subject to offensive or abusive speech so as not to deprive them of their human rights. It seems to me that the law needs the find a way to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect the rights of others, in this sense it is not an absolute unregulated right.

Or people could stop being such pansies and click *unfollow*. Not everything needs state regulation, especially when the solution can be fixed within literal seconds

Reply 52

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

I am sorry with utmost respect, I am convinced that authoritarian regimes never work. Such systems are chaotic, destructive of human thought, human life, creativity and only lead to war and social, economic and environmental destruction.

Reply 53

for_real_though

11

No, because that just takes away the whole concept of freedom of speech. Might as well go live somewhere like China where everything is monitored by the government.

Reply 54

nulli tertius

21

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

I am sorry with utmost respect, I am convinced that authoritarian regimes never work. Such systems are chaotic, destructive of human thought, human life, creativity and only lead to war and social, economic and environmental destruction.

What is you definition of "work"? Governments with a semblance of democracy have only been in continuous existence for about 300 years. During that time there have been numerous efficient and longlasting authoritarian states. If you are Chinese for example there is no doubt that the period from the ending of the Cultural Revolution to the present day is the most succesful from 1800 onwards including the period of the democracy of the first Chinese Republic.

Reply 55

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

With respect, in my view authoritarian regimes only lead to chaos and mayhem. Contrary to common expectation, authoritarian governments thankfully have a limited life span, but are hugely destructive of social and economic systems, with seriously adverse impact on human life, creativity thought, and the environment. It seems as if such regimes only thrive in a climate of human exploitation and use fear to control its citizens against their best interests. It may be arguable that the extreme form of individualism introduced into UK in the late 1970’s is an expression of a particularly unique form of authoritarian regime. We are now having to resolve this toxic legacy.

Reply 56

Bio 7

21

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Good point but what about the rights of others not to be subject to offensive or abusive speech so as not to deprive them of their human rights. It seems to me that the law needs the find a way to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect the rights of others, in this sense it is not an absolute unregulated right.

People can’t expect to go through life never being offended. Offence doesn’t harm you unless you want to be upset by everything.

Something so many people post.
“I’m offended by that. Well so f*cking what?” Stephen Fry

Reply 57

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by for_real_though

No, because that just takes away the whole concept of freedom of speech. Might as well go live somewhere like China where everything is monitored by the government.

Sorry, I am not sure I quite follow, the first statement. Good point about China, but I would suggest that we already have a very sophisticated monitoring authoritarian systems in place outside China also. I refers to the logic of algorithms that tell us what we like, determine what we watch or what we buy, shop loyalty cards, IP addresses, CCTV cameras, number plate recognition systems - the entire panoply of the techo-consumerism deployed to control and monitor us and as a bonus automatically extract cash from our bank our cash with utmost economic efficiency.

Reply 58

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by modifiedgenes

I believe that so long as you are not spreading terrorism or similar, freedom of speech should be held as sacrosanct in this country.

If people want to hold obscure, illogical or downright unpleasant views that is their concern: they will be treated by the rest of society as they always have been.

You cannot legislate against what people think, so legislating against what they say is largely pointless.

Excellent point and in my view, absolutely consistent with the pleasingly contradictory nature of our expression of our humanness.

Reply 59

gjd800

20

Original post by nulli tertius

What is you definition of "work"? Governments with a semblance of democracy have only been in continuous existence for about 300 years. During that time there have been numerous efficient and longlasting authoritarian states. If you are Chinese for example there is no doubt that the period from the ending of the Cultural Revolution to the present day is the most succesful from 1800 onwards including the period of the democracy of the first Chinese Republic.

Yes, and the Indian subcontinent saw its 'Golden Ages' in the times of authoritarian absolute monarchies (including in the case of the Gupta Empire, strict implementation of and adherence to the caste system). These were times of great advancement and great knowledge-building. I'm not advocating a return to those days or absolute monarchy (ew), but it seems that a lot of the counterpoints are spurious assertions. 'Chaos and mayhem' - what? This just does not ring true with a lot of the historical data.

Should there be legal limits on our freedom of expression when using social media?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you