Fotbawmad Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It would be a disaster if people were free to threaten and defame people as they pleased. Free speech was never meant to allow that to happen. I certainly don't think being free to criticise religion/politicians whilst not being allowed to threaten people is hypocritical. The issue isn't people using free speech to threaten on defame people. The issue is why are people using that speech to achieve that purpose. Saying it's because X person is "insert term here". Is usually a complete cop out, and often says more about the accuser than the accused. Its nearly always caused by bad/discriminatory domestic and/or foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It would be a disaster if people were free to threaten and defame people as they pleased. Free speech was never meant to allow that to happen. I certainly don't think being free to criticise religion/politicians whilst not being allowed to threaten people is hypocritical. This definition is a good one: the right of people to express their opinions publicly withoutgovernmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. You seem to be arguing that we have free speech, when you're definition of free speech actually includes exactly the things you are not allowed to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Right, except for the pretty fucking obvious point, that it is in fact a state (government) which determines the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion that ought to apply. The UK libel law is notoriously more liable to prosecuting speech than the US, under which speech is constitutionally guaranteed. In countless countries both in the modern day and not too long ago, incitement to violence/rebellion was and is easily stretched very, very loosely. All three of the above 'exceptions' are underpinned by the state. Which, in a country without a credible constitution like the UK, means that the claim to 'free speech' is in fact entirely subject to the goals of the state authority under which you live. Constitutions can also be amended to suit the needs of the government. The UK is bound by the European Convention of Human Rights, with Article 10 setting out the parameters of freedom of expression. This has also been adopted into domestic law as the Human Rights Act 1998. Unless we leave the ECHR, that is the basis of free speech in the UK. And yes, there is room for manipulation there unless the UK were to adopt a constitution that went above and beyond that outlined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Free speech in the UK certainly isn't perfect. Libel tourism is a problem in England due to the current laws, and we've jailed some people for posting 'offensive' messages on the social media, or for behaving 'offensively' at, on the way to or in the vicinity of a football match. However, the press are free to criticise the government and people aren't jailed/flogged for criticising the country's dominant religion. How would you suggest underpinning the exceptions to freedom of speech, if not by the state? You seem to be arguing that we have free speech, when you're definition of free speech actually includes exactly the things you are not allowed to say. I don't have a definition of free speech. The one I provided is pretty clear - you can express an opinion publicly without interference, subject to certain laws. Funnily enough, defamation and incitement (which I've said aren't free speech) are both on there as restrictions. This does not mean we can't have free speech - it is not, nor has ever been, an unlimited right. There are occasions when saying things constitutes a criminal act (such as a threat or inciting attacks upon a certain group of people) and it is quite right that such behaviour is deemed unacceptable. You are, however, generally free to have your opinion and mock individuals/religion and not be arrested for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Constitutions can also be amended to suit the needs of the government. The UK is bound by the European Convention of Human Rights, with Article 10 setting out the parameters of freedom of expression. This has also been adopted into domestic law as the Human Rights Act 1998. Unless we leave the ECHR, that is the basis of free speech in the UK. And yes, there is room for manipulation there unless the UK were to adopt a constitution that went above and beyond that outlined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Free speech in the UK certainly isn't perfect. Libel tourism is a problem in England due to the current laws, and we've jailed some people for posting 'offensive' on the internet or behaving 'offensively' at, on the way to or in the vicinity of a football match. However, the press are free to criticise the government and people aren't jailed/flogged for criticising the country's dominant religion. How would you suggest underpinning the exceptions to freedom of speech, if not by the state? Of course constitutions can be amended. As, of course, could the ECHR, or states could leave this jurisdiction at any time. The point being, and one that you have twice missed, is that freedom of speech is not actually being 'underpinned' by a state or government. The state or government gets to set its own boundaries of freedom of speech. That is part of its claim to sovereignty. Which of course in a currently fairly liberal state like the UK, for the majority of the population, usually ends up in farcical arrests of white males making piss-poor jokes about bombing their local airport. Cue brief libertarian outrage, a mewling climbdown, while state agencies move on as if nothing has happened. But for those who are probably not white, and are also deemed far more of a potential threat by state agencies, the exact same system of restrictions applies with far greater impunity, regardless of their rights to freedom of speech, 'cos reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Again, you're saying free speech has restrictions, which in my book makes it not free to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't have a definition of free speech. The one I provided is pretty clear - you can express an opinion publicly without interference, subject to certain laws. Funnily enough, defamation and incitement (which I've said aren't free speech) are both on there as restrictions. This does not mean we can't have free speech - it is not, nor has ever been, an unlimited right. There are occasions when saying things constitutes a criminal act (such as a threat or inciting attacks upon a certain group of people) and it is quite right that such behaviour is deemed unacceptable. You are, however, generally free to have your opinion and mock individuals/religion and not be arrested for it. A provision that is entirely determined by the state. So... not really free then, unless you have a naive belief in the complete benevolence of any state, Western-liberal or nutjob-crazy like North Korea. That very definition only presents degrees of unfree speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Islam is ridiculous. As is Judaism, Chrisianity, etc. We should be ridiculing them all. You sound well edgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Square go's against the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A provision that is entirely determined by the state. So... not really free then, unless you have a naive belief in the complete benevolence of any state, Western-liberal or nutjob-crazy like North Korea. That very definition only presents degrees of unfree speech. Provided it is within the parameters of the ECHR (where the UK and other signatories are concerned) yes. And yes, the UK is far from perfect as covered before, as are many others no doubt. We are currently in a pretty poor place too, with proposed legislation erroding free speech further (press regulation) or by stealth (monitoring powers). Unless you have an alternative as to who can impose restrictions on free speech, there isn't any option other than the state, unfortunately. If the UK goes too far, it can be taken to the ECtHR, although domestic courts can hear such complaints first. We've briefly touched on libel and threats - do you feel that these should not be unfree speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 . We are currently in a pretty poor place too, We're really not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 We've briefly touched on libel and threats - do you feel that these should not be unfree speech? This would suggest you agree that speech isn't free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Yes we are. No we aren't. I can for example call the Queen a stupid c**t or David Cameron a fucking arsehole. There is no penalty for this, or action taken against me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Still not sure if the story about David Cameron wanting to ban Snapchat, iMessage and Whatsapp is a pisstake or not. I didn't realise terrorists were organising bombings with a selfie and a "let's bomb london lols" caption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How come when people are mocking or criticizing Muslims. It's freedom of speech or speaking out, but when it involves Jews. It's insensitive, and antisemitic. Seems a bit of an odd double standard. Charlie attacked Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Anyone suggesting there should be no penalty for defamation is an absolute imbecile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Still not sure if the story about David Cameron wanting to ban Snapchat, iMessage and Whatsapp is a pisstake or not. I didn't realise terrorists were organising bombings with a selfie and a "let's bomb london lols" caption. It was in the Daily Star, so I reckon we can call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Meanwhile, Nutjob editor of the UK versions of Huffpo, Mehdi Hassan spills shite in his attempt at deflection. Worth mentioning that Mahdi thinks that unbelievers are cattle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q http://thedailybanter.com/2015/01/ludicrous-take-charlie-hebdo-freedom-speech-far/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Anyone suggesting there should be no penalty for defamation is an absolute imbecile. Did some performer not lose a defamation case against a critic who wrote that she had a fat arse on the grounds that she did, in fact, have a fat arse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Did some performer not lose a defamation case against a critic who wrote that she had a fat arse on the grounds that she did, in fact, have a fat arse? Well, Private Eye have a long history of not being taken to court by people fearing the Veritas defence. Which is as it should be. Hence a lot of Rangers-like posturing about court cases they have zero intention of pursuing because the allegations are in fact spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 We're really not. I was meaning with regards to our outlook - further restrictions appear to be being proposed, rather than upholding what we have already. In general, I agree that we're not doing badly at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.