This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Reply 60

frostyy

17

One's freedom should end where other's begins. When it comes to social media, just use common sense.

Reply 61

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by Bio 7

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

Indeed and an excellent point: often 'offence' is used as a denial of the way we make and negotiate reality. In a sense an excuse for the surrender of responsibility for our lives.

Reply 62

RowenaQS

3

Original post by Sammylou40

Who decides what’s offensive?
It’s subjective
I am offended by very different things to my husband for example.
Im offended by the ‘c’ word for example. It’s not illegal. To me it’s offensive, to others it’s just a word that’s thrown around.
Very trivial example I’m aware but where is the line drawn?
Does it need to offend a large majority before it’s censored or is one enough?
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe that I can frame my speech in a way that makes it impersonal.
I also think that people need to toughen up a bit.
There are far too many people who like to be offended for being offendeds sake. And on behalf of others too.

Preach!!

Reply 63

nulli tertius

21

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

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.

Democracy requires an assumed equality between a range of political viewpoints. It doesn't require all viewpoints to be entertained. For example some Republics proscribe attempts to restore a former monarchy. However, a democracy has to embrace the principal political divisions in the state on the basis of equality. If the state fails to do that; if political debate is loaded in a single direction, there is no reason why the other viewpoint should accept the political legitimacy of the government. The Buffs and the Blues have to have an equal opportunity to convince the electorate.

Trumpism is a product of the denial (not in the legislature, but in many other fora of discourse) of the legitimacy of the opinions of his supporters.

That liberal perspective can be seen in the writings of Ronald Dworkin, where oddly enough, despite laws having been passed by legislators holding a whole gamut of political opinions the "right" legal answer was always the liberal viewpoint. The opposite position in the USA was taken by the judge Scalia J whose belief in "originalism" always came down in favour of a hard right wing approach despite the radical and revolutionary and mercantilist sentiments of many of the founding fathers.

You are doing the same here. Your free speech is loaded in favour of the speech of which you approve. Why should your tical opponents play your game? Why should they accept the validity of your rules if they are loaded against them?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 64

nulli tertius

21

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.

Why terrorism? Why not blasphemy or sedition or communism or bourgeois revisionism?

Reply 65

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by gjd800

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.

Thank you that is a wonderful point. But I would ask which authority/power/beneficiary defined the 'Golden Age' -what exactly does it mean and who paid the price for the ‘gold’, who got to benefit from the ‘gold’. The point I made about the 'chaos and mayhem' as characterising authoritarian regimes is the bio-disruption and upset that authoritarian systems cause to human life and its inevitable life dependence on the natural environment.

Reply 66

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

(Original post by kate-Bush)If we "limit" freedom of speech, then it's no longer freedom of speech...no matter how you look at it.

I support freedom of speech 100%, doesn't matter how good your intentions are in trying to limit it to "protect" others because it will lead to people taking advantage of these limits and suppressing views...

Even if people post toxic views (pedophiles for example), they will be in the distinct minority and will thus make a fool of themselves.

I take your point but those who post toxic views often end up in the majority rather than the minority as you suggest and rather than make a fool of themselves, then become the more compelling voice, they become the vociferous minority

Good point about the intrinsic and necessary contradiction, thank you, - unlimited freedom of speech requires limits, (and those limits are set by the polis) and the principle of balance opens a way to exploit the contradiction against the underpinning primary principle. But perhaps the way to escape this apparent bind may be to argue from principals/ideas rather than statistics. What do you think?

Reply 67

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by frostyy

One's freedom should end where other's begins. When it comes to social media, just use common sense.

Thank you, you express well and succinctly the way the law perceives freedom of speech - in terms of balancing of the competing interests and rights of the speaker and the other. But can you please explain a little more about what you mean by 'common sense'. With respect I am not sure I quite follow you on this point

Reply 68

Jakal01

7

Alright, this is what I call a hot topic. While it is true that you usually have the right to say whatever you want on social media, you dont have the right to hurt other people. Now there is the question of how people will misread what you say. The best option here is to not be stupid and be as careful about what you say as possible. Dont slander people for no reason. Spite is not really a good reason to say something you know will hurt someone.

Reply 69

gjd800

20

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Thank you that is a wonderful point. But I would ask which authority/power/beneficiary defined the 'Golden Age' -what exactly does it mean and who paid the price for the ‘gold’, who got to benefit from the ‘gold’. The point I made about the 'chaos and mayhem' as characterising authoritarian regimes is the bio-disruption and upset that authoritarian systems cause to human life and its inevitable life dependence on the natural environment.

Well, Indologists, anthropologists use the framing as a convenient marker, but - more importantly, I suppose - Indians refer to several such golden ages. Comparatively large advances in maths, literature, philosophy, technology and so on. The dalits would reap the fewest rewards, as they do now, but most people would be relatively happy with their lot; their values were not our values, and our idea of 'freedom' is seldom backwards-compatible. Illustrative of the face that the caste system is so deeply engrained, maybe, but so are our notions of 'freedom' and the associated deification of democracy.

I'm still not swayed by 'chaos and mayhem' thing and I think using them in such an arcane manner obfuscates rather than clarifies. Just about every Buddhist-endorsed regime in Asia from Aśoka to early modernity placed emphasis on relative frugality and sustainability, and discouraged a mindless love of wealth or resources. This only tended to deplete with the advent of capitalism via colonialism. Living in some sort of harmony with the natural world was in the collective psyché, though of course inequality broadly construed still existed. Alienation was accepted and was the entire point of the system; via karma-building, ritual, and living according to the demands of one's station, there could be hope of emancipation. Śankara would eventually remove the caste principle and redefine Indian culture so that - in principle - everybody might have their salvation.

This is not to say I harken for those days; I do not. But there are some large sweeping statements herein that assume much, I think it impertinent to advance them uncritically.

I do fear that this has rather derailed the point, and so I shall shut up!

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 70

IQuitTSR

21

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Interesting view, can you explain a little more please. Did you intend a critical point: in that the concept freedom of speech is a myth masking our un-freedom?

Sure

The concept of freedom is a myth

If freedom is real everyone would be able to commit crimes as they please (but we have prison so no)

Reply 71

chazwomaq

18

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

The scope of the freedom is bounded by social conventions, for instance we should not cause harm or offence to other individuals

You guys are lawyers right? Then what on earth has "should" got to do with it? Freedom of speech is a legal issue. It's not about social rules as to whether we should nice or mean to each other like children in a school playground.

The limitations to free speech should be as minimal as possible and based on harm. So speech inciting violence can be proscribed, as should malicious falsehoods e.g. false accusations, as should lying to the judicial system.

But offence is absolutely not enough to curtail speech. We may as well retreat to the ages of blasphemy laws or move to Turkey, China or any number of worse countries on the matter of free speech.

Reply 72

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Chazwomaq! Any limitations on free speech should indeed be minimal and based on harm caused to another. To this end, how do you define harm? Can I subjectively define harm or can it only be limited by Parliament?

Reply 73

Sammylou40

20

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Chazwomaq! Any limitations on free speech should indeed be minimal and based on harm caused to another. To this end, how do you define harm? Can I subjectively define harm or can it only be limited by Parliament?

Harm on an individual basis is probably subject to ones own moral compass.
However as you’ve already said its subjective there isn’t really an alternative to law set by parliament

Seems to be going g round in circles now...

Reply 74

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by Joleee

OP what do you mean by 'the scope of the freedom is bounded by social conventions'. you mean users are self-censoring because they don't want to harm others? or you mean private companies are enforcing harm principle through terms and conditions? i doubt it's the former. of course self-censoring does exist sometimes, but it's probably because the user worries about their reputation, not because they worry about harming anyone. jmho

I think people generally do self-censor on the basis of not wanting to upset people. It is actually pretty natural, offline at least, and probably can be attributed to what is regarded as a social convention. In the 'real' world you can perceive how someone is and the situation as a whole and there is a natural tendency to tailor one's response accordingly. Online, whether due to the more anonymous nature of things, people do tend to let rip and say things that I am not totally sure that they would say in a face to face conversation.

Reply 75

chazwomaq

18

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

Chazwomaq! Any limitations on free speech should indeed be minimal and based on harm caused to another. To this end, how do you define harm? Can I subjectively define harm or can it only be limited by Parliament?

Not sure what "limited by Parliament" means. Harm (or sufficient harm to curtail free speech) is defined by lawmakers and courts. Definitely not subjectively defined by individuals otherwise anyone can claim they've been harmed by someone's speech and shut them down.

Reply 76

University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturersafdsda

OP

6

Original post by chazwomaq

You guys are lawyers right? Then what on earth has "should" got to do with it? Freedom of speech is a legal issue. It's not about social rules as to whether we should nice or mean to each other like children in a school playground.

The limitations to free speech should be as minimal as possible and based on harm. So speech inciting violence can be proscribed, as should malicious falsehoods e.g. false accusations, as should lying to the judicial system.

But offence is absolutely not enough to curtail speech. We may as well retreat to the ages of blasphemy laws or move to Turkey, China or any number of worse countries on the matter of free speech.

I think there are two points here. First, I would say that social rules do influence the law. When a critical mass of people take a view on something being wrong, that will give impetus to the law being made in a way that reflects that societal view. It is how the law has legitimacy. If the majority of society views something as acceptable when the law does not, that law is brought into disrepute and ought to be amended/repealed.

The second point is what you raise regarding where the line is drawn. Personally, I take a more absolutist view of free speech. I think there is an argument for people to be able to say what they like, but they have to be able to defend it/justify. If they cannot, they pay the consequences as with defamation claims.

At the end of the day, even with something such as hate speech, those views are going to be held whether you prevent them from saying it or not. One of my favourite legal quotes is from the US Judge, Justice Brandeis, "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Let them publicise their views and then have them discredited. One of the biggest factors, I think, in the BNP collapsing (and at the time they were starting to win seats and votes) was allowing Nick Griffin, the then leader, to be on Question Time. He was destroyed.

Reply 77

chazwomaq

18

Original post by University of Hertfordshire Guest Lecturer

I think there are two points here. First, I would say that social rules do influence the law.

Agreed but the law should be (much) less restrictive than social rules.

The second point is what you raise regarding where the line is drawn. Personally, I take a more absolutist view of free speech. I think there is an argument for people to be able to say what they like, but they have to be able to defend it/justify. If they cannot, they pay the consequences as with defamation claims.

My position too.

I would like to know what you think of hate speech laws and their implementation e.g. the "Count Dankula" nazi pug case.