Keyboard Friends -> Freedom of speech under attack?

Freedom of speech under attack?

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Fells

Posted: Mar 29 2012, 06:56 PM

Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,734
Member No.: 248
Joined: 18-March 12

QUOTE

I agree with free speech and anything said should be challenged. However, on the other hand should we allow racial abuse or homophobia? Some people will not engage in debate on what they say. Their main objective is to destroy, hurt and terrorise. Free speech cannot combat that. In a civilised society we need a balance

This is true - but stepping beyond mere speech into intimidation, threats of violence or actual violence does not come under freedom of speech. Threatening behaviour, or acting on threats, should absolutely be dealt with by the law.

QUOTE

Take Islamic or Christian fundamentalists. They know all the arguments for and against, but they are focused in radicalising the vulnerable and weak; this is how radicals recruit. They are not interested in debate.

I agree - but again, it is only when extreme religion is manifest into actual acts of terrorism, intimidation or violence that it should be tackled by the judicial system. We cannot imprison Islamic clerics for holding extreme views - why can we imprison someone else for holding extreme racist views?

QUOTE

I remember having a debate on another forum about a group that supported sex with children standing for parliament (this was in a Scandinavian country); everybody said they should be banned and I said no. We should challenge their beliefs and bring it out in the open and dissect what they are saying. That was fine with that group and probably other groups; but to be fair they were standing for parliament. Other cases like religious fundamentalists are a different kettle of fish; in other words we should look at each case on its own merit.

Absolutely - let society decide democratically! However, bringing in individual levels of morality concerning what speech should or should not be banned is totally undemocratic. I can't see how we can single out one level of offence over another. If we can't - then they should all be allowed. Let society challenge them. Let society show how society can be - not the bloomin' courts!

voice

Posted: Mar 29 2012, 08:00 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 25,664
Member No.: 1
Joined: 3-March 08

QUOTE

Agreed.

QUOTE

Agreed; we can�t punish somebody for hold extreme views, but we can deal with those trying to convert others to those extreme views or using those extreme views to recruit or intimidate.

QUOTE

I agree if society could challenge everything but it is not as simple as that; the government has a duty to protect the vulnerable.

Personally I challenge everything that is thrown at me, and you do the same; that is brilliant. Sadly not everybody has the means or intelligence or the vocabulary to do the same. If we were living in a free thinking intelligent society then there would be no problem.
To be honest I am behind you; but it is not about you and I but the bigger picture. I also have conflicting thoughts on this. A governments duty is to allow free speech, and at the same time balance that with living in a society free from abuse.

Fells	Posted: Mar 29 2012, 10:05 PM
Member Group: Admin Posts: 1,734 Member No.: 248 Joined: 18-March 12	I agree with pretty much everything you have said, voice, except, perhaps, in relation to the role of government for cases of abuse. I think we would need to carefully define 'abuse'. Someone expressing a view, that is not intended to incite physical harm or intimidation, but is, nonetheless, pretty extreme, should not be deemed as being abusive, per se (where being termed abusive is saying it's breaking the law). If those words were delivered, for example, in the work place, directed at, and communicated to, specific people in a threatening/discriminating/intimidating manner, then that is abuse. Tweeting it should not be deemed as abuse either. In poor taste, yes, offensive, definitely, but abuse? No, I don't think so - certainly not something that should invite a custodial sentence. Even where young people may be being influenced to believe extreme dogma - such as from those extremist Islamic clerics, or young earth creationism - then we have a duty, as a society, to challenge that learning. I agree that you and I both do that whenever we see it, and it's true that we will often be fighting a losing battle - especially where religion is concerned - but it's our duty to do that. It's not the duty of the judicial system (although it is the duty of the state education system - and that is one are that I think the government should be more strict in fighting nonsense). We should do everything we can to protect free speech in all its guises

Ron55	Posted: Mar 30 2012, 06:00 PM
Trust no one. Group: Members Posts: 6,809 Member No.: 95 Joined: 11-September 09	I agree with the decision to lock him up, it�s about time this country and the courts, took a stance against this sort of behaviour. So much time is spent fannying about mollycoddling these people and giving them a slap on the back of the hand and telling them not to be naughty, that they are laughing at the law in this country. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to insult especially in the abhorrent way this has been done. Where the hell will it all stop. Its all very well to say we must challenge these people and try and educate them but most of them couldn�t give a toss about your education and, there are those who do not have the communicative face to face skills and/or self confidence to approach these people with the intension of challenging their belief or reasoning. The sort of person who writes these comments is not usually the sort of person to stand there and be �educated� without their views being put across physically, it then becomes violent. Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world. These people are looking for a response, any response, and it doesn�t matter what sort. If you think our freedom of speech is under threat, its because of those that have misused and abused it in this way. A few years ago and I would have agreed this was knee-jerk reaction but not now. If clamping down on this sort of low-life who clearly have no respect for the families of those who are at the receiving end, the ones that have to pick up the pieces, means giving them a custodial sentence, then so be it. Freedom of speech needs to be responsible, but so does the law that protects us from these gutter-rats and if nothing was done about it, we would call the courts irresponsible. Throw away the key.

voice

Posted: Mar 30 2012, 09:08 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 25,664
Member No.: 1
Joined: 3-March 08

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 29 2012, 10:05 PM)

I agree with pretty much everything you have said, voice, except, perhaps, in relation to the role of government for cases of abuse. I think we would need to carefully define 'abuse'.

Someone expressing a view, that is not intended to incite physical harm or intimidation, but is, nonetheless, pretty extreme, should not be deemed as being abusive, per se (where being termed abusive is saying it's breaking the law). If those words were delivered, for example, in the work place, directed at, and communicated to, specific people in a threatening/discriminating/intimidating manner, then that is abuse. Tweeting it should not be deemed as abuse either. In poor taste, yes, offensive, definitely, but abuse? No, I don't think so - certainly not something that should invite a custodial sentence.

Even where young people may be being influenced to believe extreme dogma - such as from those extremist Islamic clerics, or young earth creationism - then we have a duty, as a society, to challenge that learning. I agree that you and I both do that whenever we see it, and it's true that we will often be fighting a losing battle - especially where religion is concerned - but it's our duty to do that. It's not the duty of the judicial system (although it is the duty of the state education system - and that is one are that I think the government should be more strict in fighting nonsense).

We should do everything we can to protect free speech in all its guises

I will go along with what you said here. However, I do think the courts overreacted in this case. This persons comments were stupid and the police should just have had a word with him; pointing out that his remarks were stupid and could cause hurt and pain.

Fells	Posted: Mar 30 2012, 09:18 PM
Member Group: Admin Posts: 1,734 Member No.: 248 Joined: 18-March 12	Totally agree - and perhaps ordered him to give a lecture to school kids on why it was wrong.

azure74

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 689
Member No.: 224
Joined: 20-May 11

QUOTE (Ron55 @ Mar 30 2012, 06:00 PM)

I agree with the decision to lock him up, it�s about time this country and the courts, took a stance against this sort of behaviour. So much time is spent fannying about mollycoddling these people and giving them a slap on the back of the hand and telling them not to be naughty, that they are laughing at the law in this country. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to insult especially in the abhorrent way this has been done. Where the hell will it all stop. Its all very well to say we must challenge these people and try and educate them but most of them couldn�t give a toss about your education and, there are those who do not have the communicative face to face skills and/or self confidence to approach these people with the intension of challenging their belief or reasoning. The sort of person who writes these comments is not usually the sort of person to stand there and be �educated� without their views being put across physically, it then becomes violent. Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world.

The sort of person who writes these comments is not usually the sort of person to stand there and be �educated� without their views being put across physically, it then becomes violent. Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world. [QUOTE]

Hi Ron

I agree with all your sensible comments.

azure

Fells

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 01:40 PM

Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,734
Member No.: 248
Joined: 18-March 12

QUOTE (azure74 @ Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM)

Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world.

The real world would disagree with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT_3X-vF1uU
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...14125219AA6aBiQ
http://everything2.com/title/I+used+to+be+racist
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...23023810AATYOcE
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1258684
http://talkrational.org/archive/index.php/t-11571.html

There are more.

Many of these people would have been justifiably imprisoned by yours and Ron's standards.

Education is possible - no, essential. Imprisonment for such cases resolves nothing but our own fettered need for vengeance and self-righteousness.

azure74

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 03:01 PM

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 689
Member No.: 224
Joined: 20-May 11

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 01:40 PM)

QUOTE (azure74 @ Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM)

Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world.

To paraphrase Voltaire, Who stated

�I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it�

Freedom of speech is usually sanctioned by the Government and Public at large.

Who would stand for speeches about Racial or Minority incitement, or incitement to Murder or advocating Child Pornography, or Paedophilia?

Some gullible folk will take notice and want to be a follower

In that instant the Government has every right to intervene, as it is against the law

How would the perpetrators like a few weeks in 'Wormwood Scrubs' sans privileges?

They would soon think twice about standing on Soap Boxes, tweeting, or on Facebook spouting evil.

azure

Fells	Posted: Mar 31 2012, 03:56 PM
Member Group: Admin Posts: 1,734 Member No.: 248 Joined: 18-March 12	The quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is often attributed to Voltaire, but was actually first penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. It is, nonetheless, the stance I take. I also think this quote, which was from Voltaire, is relevant to the discussion: "Life is bristling with thorns, and I know no other remedy than to cultivate one's garden" Someone should not be thrown in prison for holding the opinion that paedopilia or child pornography is ok - they should, however, be thrown in prison for acting on it. Similarly, inciting murder, that is to say, causing a murder to happen through instruction, is not the same as having the opinion that someone would be better off dead.

azure74

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 06:09 PM

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 689
Member No.: 224
Joined: 20-May 11

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 03:56 PM)

The quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is often attributed to Voltaire, but was actually first penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. It is, nonetheless, the stance I take.

I also think this quote, which was from Voltaire, is relevant to the discussion:

"Life is bristling with thorns, and I know no other remedy than to cultivate one's garden"

Someone should not be thrown in prison for holding the opinion that paedopilia or child pornography is ok - they should, however, be thrown in prison for acting on it. Similarly, inciting murder, that is to say, causing a murder to happen through instruction, is not the same as having the opinion that someone would be better off dead.

Fells

Why then say things that are immoral and illegal? if you are not inciting people to act on these beliefs.

No wonder the internet is full of porn with the largest hits. People follow the crowd.

I speak as Mother, Grandmother, who had installed a sense of decency in my family.

Of course when children are adults they make up their own mind about life.

I am not a prude by any means, but some things are just �Not cricket�

�It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong�

Voltaire..

azure

azure74

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 06:20 PM

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 689
Member No.: 224
Joined: 20-May 11

QUOTE (voice @ Mar 29 2012, 08:00 PM)

QUOTE

This is true - but stepping beyond mere speech into intimidation, threats of violence or actual violence does not come under freedom of speech.� Threatening behaviour, or acting on threats, should absolutely be dealt with by the law.

Agreed.

QUOTE

I agree - but again, it is only when extreme religion is manifest into actual acts of terrorism, intimidation or violence that it should be tackled by the judicial system.� We cannot imprison Islamic clerics for holding extreme views - why can we imprison someone else for holding extreme racist views?

Agreed; we can�t punish somebody for hold extreme views, but we can deal with those trying to convert others to those extreme views or using those extreme views to recruit or intimidate.

QUOTE

Absolutely - let society decide democratically!� However, bringing in individual levels of morality concerning what speech should or should not be banned is totally undemocratic.� I can't see how we can single out one level of offence over another.� If we can't - then they should all be allowed.� Let society challenge them.� Let society show how society can be - not the bloomin' courts!

[QUOTE] Sadly not everybody has the means or intelligence or the vocabulary to do the same.

Hi Voice

Isn't the Establishment and Government made up of so-called intelligent people? They make many mistakes even though they have the vocabulary to convince you Black is White.

Intelligence and the 'Gift of the Gab does not equate with 'Common sense'

azure

Ron55

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 08:19 PM

Trust no one.

Group: Members
Posts: 6,809
Member No.: 95
Joined: 11-September 09

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 03:56 PM)

Someone should not be thrown in prison for holding the opinion that paedopilia or child pornography is ok - they should, however, be thrown in prison for acting on it. Similarly, inciting murder, that is to say, causing a murder to happen through instruction, is not the same as having the opinion that someone would be better off dead.

I couldn�t disagree more. If an action starts with a thought, then surely prevention is better than cure. I cannot think of a more unthinkable act than paedophilia or child pornography and in my humble opinion speaking as a parent and a grandfather, anyone who holds such thoughts should not be allowed in the same vicinity as the public let alone around children. If they are prepared to let others know their thoughts, then society should act and not wait for this heinous crime to take place and then try to put the lives of the victim and their families back together; assuming the victim was fortunate enough to live.

Ron55

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 08:27 PM

Trust no one.

Group: Members
Posts: 6,809
Member No.: 95
Joined: 11-September 09

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 01:40 PM)

QUOTE (azure74 @ Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM)

Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world.

I really wouldn�t accept this as a true representation of the real world in its entirety.

Fells

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 08:29 PM

Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,734
Member No.: 248
Joined: 18-March 12

QUOTE

Fortunately we don't have 'thought police' and we don't live in a police state. Guilty before a crime has been committed? That's some justice!

Someone who thinks the age of consent should be, say, 14 is advocating paedophilia under the current laws - you would have them banged up for simply having an opinion.

What a suggestion!

Fells

Posted: Mar 31 2012, 08:30 PM

Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,734
Member No.: 248
Joined: 18-March 12

QUOTE (Ron55 @ Mar 31 2012, 08:27 PM)

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 01:40 PM)

QUOTE (azure74 @ Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM)

Others, on the other hand, are cowards, you will never get to meet them and as for educating them, well, its just not going to happen, not in the real world.

I really wouldn�t accept this as a true representation of the real world in its entirety.

The real world disagrees with you.

voice

Posted: Apr 1 2012, 05:56 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 25,664
Member No.: 1
Joined: 3-March 08

QUOTE

Hi Voice

Isn't the Establishment and Government made up of so-called intelligent people? They make many mistakes even though they have the vocabulary to convince you Black is White.

Intelligence and the 'Gift of the Gab does not equate with 'Common sense'

azure

Hi Azure, hope you are well?

What I meant by "intelligence" is the whole package; that is also including "common sense" but I agree with what you say and I did work it badly.

The trouble with the word "intelligence" is that is could mean many things. There are people with Degrees and are regarded as "intellectuals" and are actually thick as two short planks, and then there are those than have no qualifications are highly intelligent and have plenty of common sense so the word "intelligent" is ambiguous.

As for Government; that is open to dispute.

Ron55

Posted: Apr 1 2012, 06:33 PM

Trust no one.

Group: Members
Posts: 6,809
Member No.: 95
Joined: 11-September 09

QUOTE (Fells @ Mar 31 2012, 08:29 PM)

QUOTE

Like I said, it starts with a thought or an opinion. If you are willing to voice it, the chances are you are prepared to do it. How often in the past have these thing been ignored? Nip it in the bud before it happens.

Fells

Posted: Apr 1 2012, 06:36 PM

Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,734
Member No.: 248
Joined: 18-March 12

QUOTE

If you are willing to voice it, the chances are you are prepared to do it

Utter nonsense.

Ron55	Posted: Apr 1 2012, 06:43 PM
Trust no one. Group: Members Posts: 6,809 Member No.: 95 Joined: 11-September 09	Well, I've been through those links again and there really isn't enough there to convince the real world disagrees with me.

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Debate | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you