Thread: Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing

"I disagree with what you say, yet I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I agree 100% with that statement, without freedom of speech we are drones, we are pointless
If I see soemthing wrong and I can't say it, I'm nothing but a robot, a programmed member of society
but where do we draw the line?
we surely cannot have people walking the streets screaming that they hate jews and then they are the scum of Earth and must all die?

Recently Abu Hamza was arrested for inciting racial hatred, and on certain terror laws
Where do we say, okay that falls within your boundaries of freedom of speech, and where do we say, okay thats just outside them. You cannot say that

How can we have freedom of speech in certain degrees?

You either have it or you dont, surely?

I'll post later =D

Imran

So that is called tolerance...
Why, if people cry out that they hate different nations or skin colour - they are just racialists. It is not about freedom of speech, it's about a superiority complex.

I'm with Rav.

no matter how you disagree with someone, you cant slander them.

"He is a comunist who hates woman, children and animals! He thinks all [insert race/eithnic group here] should be castrated to ensure racial purity!"

that is simply not allowed.

Originally Posted by Keeper

that is simply not allowed.
[/b]

Not allowed by WHOM?

Who makes these decisions and draws the lines between acceptability and unacceptability?

And then, who interprets those decisions and enforces them?

And who gives the enforcers the authority to enforce?

To put it another way, where is the point where we stepped off of the path of liberty and onto the slippery slope of tyranny?

Originally Posted by pj

Not allowed by WHOM?
[/b]

comman sence and courtasy.
posably in some places by the law

Who makes these decisions and draws the lines between acceptability and unacceptability?
[/b]

I say God, but I dont think that this thread should be hijact and turned into a religious topic

And then, who interprets those decisions and enforces them?
[/b]

Now that is a good question.

And who gives the enforcers the authority to enforce?
[/b]

Ruler

To put it another way, where is the point where we stepped off of the path of liberty and onto the slippery slope of tyranny?
[/b]

I wasn't aware you had. How are you being terrorized?

[edit] correcting sentance

If someone's directly inciting violence towards anyone then it should be stopped imo. Like when there were Muslims protesting in the UK holding up placards saying, 'Behead all Christians.', that shouldn't be allowed imo.

Yeah that is a very difficult point. On one side you have the freedom of speech, on the other hand you have racism and hate that might come from freedom of speech.

Honestly, if someone sais he hates black people, or jews or whatever, I really don't know or he should have the right to say that... aslong as he doesn't start burning crosses in peoples frontyard, it Might be ok...

And who gives the enforcers the authority to enforce?[/b]

I would say it has to be the people who give the authority to the enforcers. If everyone under rule decided tomorrow that they would no longer follow anything that the authorities said, the authorities would lose their ability to successfully enforce.

You have the freedom to kill another person, but you won't do it because you are aware of the consequences.

I think freedom of speech is something that belong in all cultures and nations, but common sense goes much farther than that. You won't openly hate another person just because you can do it.

IMO every subject matter gives people "Absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientitic, moral or theological" We need the fullest liberty of expression to push our arguments to thier logical limit, however not to the limit of social embarrassment. Such freedom on this level is very necessary for the dignity of persons.

I agree with the first post, its an all or nothing thing. You either have freedom of speech or you don't. There should be no line. A line by definition implies there is a limit. A limit to how much freedom of speech you have, and if you limit it, its not truely free.

Every thing should be allowed. Yes even burning crosses should be legal. Unless something physically hurt someone it should be fine. Last time I checked we have the freedom of speech, not the freedom of never having to be insulted.

Who are you to say what can and can not be said? You have every right to disagree with me but you have no right to arrest me and put me into jail because of it.

the line is drawn at slander. plain and simple. everything else is fair game, even though we should show courtesy.

Since we are on the topic of speech, i want to clarify something. I have heard that many European countries have limitied speaking rights. For example, saying \"nigger\" in public is illegal in England. The penalty may not be severe, but it still gets you to the big-house (jail) for a small amount of time. Is that true?

Originally Posted by Hard

Since we are on the topic of speech, i want to clarify something. I have heard that many European countries have limitied speaking rights. For example, saying \"nigger\" in public is illegal in England. The penalty may not be severe, but it still gets you to the big-house (jail) for a small amount of time. Is that true?[/b]

I very much doubt it, but you never know. I guess it depends on the context. If you call a black policeman a nigger to wind him up he'll probably take you down the station under some Act. If you just say it in passing (I'm not condoning it) no one's gonna come and arrest you.

I am all for freedom of speech, however, I am greatly against "Freedom to be an a55hole"!!!!

If you pay attention, most people who make the biggest deal about FOS and yell the loudest about their right of FOS are the ones exercising the other freedom mentioned in this post.

Originally Posted by Seeker

I am all for freedom of speech, however, I am greatly against "Freedom to be an a55hole"!!!!

If you pay attention, most people who make the biggest deal about FOS and yell the loudest about their right of FOS are the ones exercising the other freedom mentioned in this post.
[/b]

There is a very good reason for that. When someone wants to get rid of freedom of speech their first target is at the really offensive stuff that no normal person likes. So, of course the jerks will yell first because their rights are being taken away. The other people don't complain because their "rights" are "safe". Atleast thats what they think, but if you take away the rights of some people what guarantee do you have that your rights will not be taken away.

I don't like people like that but I will stand up for their rights because they play an important role. They are the buffer zone. As long as they are there speaking their filith I know I am free to speak my mind. Once they are gone, I may very well be their next target.

There is something you really need to understand. One day you might have something to say, you might feel its the most important thing in the world to say at that time. Now should you be allowed to say it? Yes you should be able to. Even if every single person around you says that its offensive, even if every single person around you hates you for it, if you feel that important about it, you will want to say it and you should be allowed to. If you take away other peoples rights to speak, when that day comes you may find that what you want to say is "illegal".

Just because you don't have anything controversial or insulting to say now, doesn't mean you never will have any to say. Thats why its important to protect the jerks, because one day you may find yourself to be one in the eyes of everyone around you.

I live in Enlgand and Im asian, i get paki all the time, nobody gets bangd away lol
nah I dont think its a law but inciting racial hatred is so that can be twisted

but my question regarding freedom of speech is like this
many people have said the line must be drawn at insult

who decided whats an insult?
I tell you this now, I come from a Muslim family, most Muslims regard the prophet far higher than any member of their family. Are any of you familiar with the author Salman Rushdie and his book satanic verses?
Muslims found this book benyond offensive.
The fatwa was placed on him.
In my eyes he has a right to say these things, its his call is it not?
Yet by your laws this is forbidden, it offneds Muslims, they find it insultive,
he is slandering there beliefs
You see, when we are discussing wether something is offensive we must look at only only one thing.
If it ofends one person then it ofensive.
If we go by your rules then msot things cannot be said

Its not freedom of speech is it if its not free, and like Alric said, if thers limits on it then its not free at all

Every time we bow to political correctness we take one step closer to giving up our right to freedom of speech.

Imran

By the way, this is all well known. First you ban "violent" speech, then you say all hate speech is violent. Then you label anything anti government as hate, then you ban all speech and no one is allowed to complain because its against the law. People always support the first part because generally people are nice and don't want that kind of stuff in their community. The problem is they have no say on the second part. The only way to stop it, is at the start.

hear hear

I think freedom of speech should be limited a ways before it "infringes upon the rights of others." For example, I recall seeing a protest on the news of this batshit woman who was preaching about her own religion. They protested near a military funeral, with signs an slogans such as "God hates fags," "Thank God for dead soldiers," "Thank God for 9/11" and other stuff that would generally start a riot.

And the police had to let them do it!

I draw the line at racism or anything like the horror story I told. Yes, free speech is fine... But if you are protesting specifically to offend or provoke a person, race, or party, then you should have to shut the hell up.

So free speech is only ok as long as no one disagrees with you? How exactly is that free?

No, I mean something that's so blatantly offensive that it can lead to violence. For example, the KKK should NOT be allowed near neighborhoods that have mostly black residents. That's happened before. The police had to protect them, too. That could've ended a LOT worse than the police having rocks thrown at them. (Which is all that happened, thankfully)
Mostly, I'm just saying that racism should be illegal.

How can you make racism illegal? You mean displays of racism should be illegal? Everyone should go around with a fake smile on their facing wishing you death while acting like your their friend. Because its ok to hate someone as long as you act like your friends in public.

Really you just need to grow up and learn that some people just don't like others. Its a way of life and throwing people into jail because you disagree with them isn't really the right way to go about it. The best way to deal with it, is to just ignore it.

Throwing rocks isn't free speech though. If someone tries to hurt another, that is illegal and should be.

Originally Posted by Alric

How can you make racism illegal? You mean displays of racism should be illegal? Everyone should go around with a fake smile on their facing wishing you death while acting like your their friend. Because its ok to hate someone as long as you act like your friends in public.

Really you just need to grow up and learn that some people just don't like others. Its a way of life and throwing people into jail because you disagree with them isn't really the right way to go about it. The best way to deal with it, is to just ignore it.

Throwing rocks isn't free speech though. If someone tries to hurt another, that is illegal and should be.
[/b]

That's a bit defeatist! Instead of saying 'give up and accept it', people should be saying 'Lets try and destroy these irrational hatreds'. It's like psychologists saying 'you've got a phobia, live with it!', when showing someone that theres nothing to dislike there is easy.

I guess I didn't think it through enough. I stand corrected.

Our freedoms are restricted to the freedoms of others. but then that doesnt work with the first amendment, which says we can say anything we want. I personally dont think that words can hurt people, and since these days people do care, it is considered breaking the other persons freedom.