Woman with opinion taken to court

[Tom]

It's a binary term. A black and white term. It's either free, or it is restricted in some fashion. It's that simple.

That's your definition. Most of the rest of the world uses an entirely different definition, one which precludes people from shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think you misunderstand what the the term freedom of speech actually means.

It's a binary term. A black and white term. It's either free, or it is restricted in some fashion. It's that simple.

There's no balance in free speech. It's either free, or it isn't free. Any legal or structural impediment means that you don't have free speech. If your ability to freely express your ideas, no matter what they are, is impaired in any way then it's no longer free.

While I agree entirely with the thrust of your argument in this thread, this premise isn't true. There isn't truly free speech; for example there are laws of libel. Even in countries with "the right of free speech", e.g. the US, this still applies.

 

[Scouse]

While I agree entirely with the thrust of your argument in this thread, this premise isn't true. There isn't truly free speech; for example there are laws of libel. Even in countries with "the right of free speech", e.g. the US, this still applies.

That's your definition. Most of the rest of the world uses an entirely different definition, one which precludes people from shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Both of these aren't really the argument tho. Libel is an action taken that does a lot more than just offend. Shouting fire in a crowded theater probably won't get you arrested for anything other than a public order offence. Harrasment laws are the equivalent of these sort of arguments and I already acknowledge (and support) their existence.

So yes, I concede these points - but for the purposes of a theoretical discussion on the principles of free speech I feel it's better to disregard them as they simply muddy the water without moving the argument forward.


Edit: And on libel specifically - you get called into court to give the basis for your expressed opinion. It doesn't take a moral or ethical stance, just a factual stance. If you're factually correct then you go freely on your merry way and, possibly, the person who accused you of libel gets punished.

 

[DaGaffer]

Both of these aren't really the argument tho. Libel is an action taken that does a lot more than just offend. Shouting fire in a crowded theater probably won't get you arrested for anything other than a public order offence. Harrasment laws are the equivalent of these sort of arguments and I already acknowledge (and support) their existence.

So yes, I concede these points - but for the purposes of a theoretical discussion on the principles of free speech I feel it's better to disregard them as they simply muddy the water without moving the argument forward.


Edit: And on libel specifically - you get called into court to give the basis for your expressed opinion. It doesn't take a moral or ethical stance, just a factual stance. If you're factually correct then you go freely on your merry way and, possibly, the person who accused you of libel gets punished.

Nah, sorry, you can't argue (your words) "It's a binary term. A black and white term. It's either free, or it is restricted in some fashion. It's that simple", and then say the limitations to free speech we've just pointed out don't count! Free speech emphatically isn't a binary thing, and nor should it be. The argument has to be "what are the limits to free speech acceptable to society?" That's the best you can hope for anywhere, and this, in my opinion, is the wrong side of the line.

 

[Embattle]

No such thing as free speech....that is all.

 

[Scouse]

No such thing as free speech....that is all.

Of course there is, it just doesn't exist on earth at the moment.

 

[Job]

Its an outrageous abuse of the malicious communication act, it is not there to prosecute people with offensive, non violent views.
It should be challenged, overturned and everyone involved should be investigated.

 

[Bodhi]

The good news is judging by the Jimmy Carr gig I'm currently sitting in the intermission of, there is still plenty of dodgy stuff you can still make jokes about....

 

[Raven]

Knowing Jimmy Carr, little of it is funny.

 

[Job]

Huh huh huh huh

 

[Bodhi]

Nope was funny as fuck.

 

[old.Osy]

If you can criminalise said speech it's no longer free.

Well, what if some nutter decides it would be a good idea to say all Scouses are terrorists and they want to blow shit up? Wouldn't that be nice, especially in some crowded place with some friendly PC eyeing you?

Or picture the situation with this idiot woman in a slightly different circumstance: What if she would have said the exact same thing to their faces? To someone who doesn't know what right/wrong is, and is easily influenced by mere words. Wouldn't that be pretty.

I think that's the problem really, people confuse the freedom of speech with being able to do just about anything.

 

[Scouse]

Say. Not do.

I have noticed that nobody has even attempted to respond to my larger post and the pertinent points made there. Perhaps you just don't want to think about them and would rather talk about nutters.

But to humour you - that part I will respond to.

1) So what if they said that. Everyone will realise they're a nutter. You wouldn't get any real traction that would go anywhere. And if we have a single nutter that decided to do something on there own that's something the state can never defend against anyway - so how foes curbing freedom of speech help?

2) Violent action isn't necessarily the wrong thing. Unless you think Nelson Mandela was wrong to be a terrorist?

 

[Talivar]

In theory everything you say is correct Scouse and in a much nicer world it would be perfect, the problem is i think you vastly underestimate the power some people hold over others with their words. We like to think we all have our own minds and make our own decisions but the truth is we are not that hard to manipulate really. But curb the freedom of speech and those who want to exploit others will no doubt continue to do so anyway and ignore the law. Just look at how easy our current government used words to convince so many people to vote for them, many of whom are now being screwed senseless by the same government.

 

[Raven]

2) Violent action isn't necessarily the wrong thing. Unless you think Nelson Mandela was wrong to be a terrorist?

Wait, what?

ofc he was, he was utter scum. Blowing up people (white and black) in shopping centres...yeah, such a great man.

Regardless of how he repented in later life, that is a fucking stupid comment. There is never a time for violence against innocents.

 

[Scouse]

ofc he was, he was utter scum. Blowing up people (white and black) in shopping centres...yeah, such a great man.

I never said he was a great man. You'll find old posts of mine that agree with your viewpoint. But apartheid ended and the ANC's campaign, whilst hateful, was also instrumental in that.

Not everything is black and white.

 

[Moriath]

I never said he was a great man. You'll find old posts of mine that agree with your viewpoint. But apartheid ended and the ANC's campaign, whilst hateful, was also instrumental in that.

Not everything is black and white.

He was an ntelligent opportunist upon his release. Before his imprisonment he was an indiscrimiate terrorist.

 

[Scouse]

Are you saying that violent rebellion can never be justified?

 

[Raven]

Against the state, yes. Against the population, no.

 

[Gwadien]

Not everything is black and white.

It was in south Africa apartheid


Hue

 

[old.Osy]

Hey hey, watch the derail.

Scouse, if there will be a law which says you can't say "Black people are the scum of the earth and should be enslaved", I would be perfectly fine with that.

If that's what you call curbing the freedom of speech, then I welcome it.

Instead of being all utopic about it, be sensible and understand that morals and respect, aswell as common sense should apply to freedom of speech, as it applies to any other right that we as people living in modern societies have.

 

[Scouse]

You're just stating the same thing @old.Osy. "I don't think people should be able to say xxx".

That's not an argument. That's just "I feel this way".

Unless you can rebuff the pertinent points that have already been raised, with reasons and examples, then you're just harping on the old, wrong, lines...

 

[Urgat]

Dude you trying to DEBATE with forum warriors who have no sound grasp of how to conduct a proper conversation / argument

give it up as a bad job.

I agree with you BTW.

 

[Scouse]

give it up as a bad job

I probably will when I get demoralised by the lack of engagement enough.

But FH is a discussion forum after all, and it's kind of an important topic. Perhaps it's worth perservering a little while longer. Maybe convert some people from the dark authoritarian orwellian side eh?

 

[Scouse]

Tory MP David Davis says the British are "Intellectually Lazy" about defending their liberties.

Davis said it was astonishing how cavalier people were about liberty, citing the fact that Britons have no recent experience of living under a police state as an explanation...

"Because for the past 200 years we haven’t had a Stasi or a Gestapo, we are intellectually lazy about it, so it’s an uphill battle. Even people who are broadly on my side of the political spectrum in believing in privacy and liberty tend to take the state at its word too often"

...

 

[Urgat]

I probably will when I get demoralised by the lack of engagement enough.

But FH is a discussion forum after all,

its not though is it? How many people on here are interested, or even understand how to have a proper conversation about a subject.

I can count on one hand the number of regulars in here that actually understand the concept of debating one's points properly.

It's an exercise in futility to even try most of the time.

and yeah... I see the irony in me still posting here despite that viewpoint... its like crack or something... :/

 

[Ormorof]

Ive always been astonished how happy people are to give up personal freedoms

The "greater good" argument is usually a bad sign

Edit: and i include myself in the happy idiots, here in finland the amount of data handled by state is astonishing, in most cases it does not appear to be anything more than a convenient way of making things easier

But who knows who else is listening, governments dont exactly have a great record on security

 

[DaGaffer]

Well, what if some nutter decides it would be a good idea to say all Scouses are terrorists and they want to blow shit up? Wouldn't that be nice, especially in some crowded place with some friendly PC eyeing you?

Or picture the situation with this idiot woman in a slightly different circumstance: What if she would have said the exact same thing to their faces? To someone who doesn't know what right/wrong is, and is easily influenced by mere words. Wouldn't that be pretty.

I think that's the problem really, people confuse the freedom of speech with being able to do just about anything.

Actually, if she'd said it someone's face she'd probably have been OK. She was arrested under Malicious Communications because words only count if you say them on Twitter apparently. She might still have been arrested for a non-specific "public order offence" (the British authorities do love their catch-all regulations that can be used for anything they like), but unlike that woman on the bus ranting at Muslims a few weeks back, she didn't actually threaten anyone.

 

[Scouse]

Ive always been astonished how happy people are to give up personal freedoms

I think it's because of three things 1) lack of imagination about use of laws, 2) a short and disinterested memory - so patterns of governmental behaviour go unseen, and 3) an unhealthy level of trust in the government. - Even if the worst happens they and put it down to "unforseen consequences" rather than this is how the law is supposed to work and is convenient for the government.

To once again provide an example to back up my opinions: Section 44 of the Terrorism Act - that's the terrorism act (allegedly) for use against "terrorists" - was used to clamp down on peaceful protest, enable suspicionless stop-and-search all over the country, clamp down on @Big G and his photography (and start an previously non-existent argument about whether photography in public places is OK).

The powers under section 44 were so broadly drawn that authorisations allowing for stop and search were made on a rolling basis from their introduction in 2001. For example, for almost 10 years all of Greater London was designated as an area in which anyone could be stopped and searched without suspicion.

As a result of this, we have seen section 44 powers being used against peaceful protestors on a regular basis. The statistics showed that if you’re Black or Asian you were between five and seven times more likely to be stopped under section 44 than if you were White. Yet of the many thousands of people stopped under this power, not one was subsequently convicted of a terrorism offence.

It was obviously being abused and the government could have repealed it - but they wouldn't. It took a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights before the government would belatedly change it. And what are they trying to do now? Leave the ECHR (with massive international ramifications) - the very court that was set up to protect citizens of Europe from their own Governments.


And plenty of people on this board support our withdrawal from the ECHR. Why? Probably because they hate criminals and the ECHR was used to try to ensure prisoners kept the vote. And we like to hurt prisoners. Because we're dumb and shortsighted.

 

[Talivar]

Some of us are not debating because there really is no true answer. I think we all want it to be like Scouse wants it but i personally dont think it has ever been like that. The only people with true freedom of speech are people with power as they say what they like with no fear of the rules. To varying degrees the rest of us say what we are allowed to say when we are allowed to say it. I dont think we will ever see true freedom of speech unless we for starters get rid of the current Government and make sure they are not replaced by anything similar. Atm we have powerful people who can say what they like and sway the masses, but try to stop these people and tell them what they are doing wrong and suddenly that freedom of speech is taken away