How much do you really value free speech?

philologos

It seems that free speech is all the rage these days. Indeed I'm a strong believer in it, but I'm finding more and more hypocrisy by it's advocates.

There was a thread the other day about the Islamic march through Wootton Bassett when British troops were coming home from Afghanistan. Indeed, 400,000 people joined a facebook group opposing it.

It seems to me that these 400,000 people would be arguing for their right to freedom of speech were a blasphemy law brought in like in Ireland, but wouldn't be arguing for the right to freedom of speech for these protesters?

So what about ye?
Does freedom of speech only matter when it doesn't offend you?

biko

Yes - with minor restrictions

I believe in free speech for anyone - liberals, muslims, nazis, you name it.
Only in discussion can flaws be found.

I don't believe in free speech on boards however. Not because I mod it but because outside slander legislation makes it difficult.

AnonoBoy

Yes - with minor restrictions

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

Agricola

Yes - with minor restrictions

Free speech for all is the only way. That way everybody gets to make their point (no matter how idiotic some points may be) and then everybody is happy. That's alot better than a situation where some groups are thick skinned and get alot of flak, while other groups are uber-sensitive and everyone is walking on egg shells around them.

BlitzKrieg

Not when it offends me

Yes with minor restrictions.

that restriction being simply you have the freedom of speech, I should have the freedom of ignoring you if I desire. So that means polite organized free speech. if you want to march, organize it, make it official, and make it clear. Meaning if I have no interest in your cause i do not get caught out by improptu rally interfering in my day.

In the case of the Islamic march, if it was arranged in accordance to the laws and requirements of the state and have dotted all the i's and ticked all the t's to use the public space for a march and notified the police etc to keep things safe and organised.

Then fine, no problem from me.

Gay Pride Parades work mostly without a hitch because of this.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

AnonoBoy wrote: »

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

I'm just fed up of peoples hypocrisy on this issue. People are demanding their right to free speech, but in reality in modern Britain and in Ireland you can be arrested for expressing your opinion if it causes offence. There are countless videos on youtube alone of people being arrested for demonstrating and evangelising.

Someone posted a video a pro-Palestine demonstrator on this forum a few months ago, and the Gard was quoting the Public Order Act, and it is actually amazing how much freedom of speech is limited in public in this country. You really ought to take a look at it for yourself particularly section 7 and 9.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/print.html

The_Kew_Tour

Yes - with minor restrictions

I believe in free speech and would love to see it been a normal process.

But at end of day it will never really happen. One great thing about the US is that they can say whatever they like.

Was at Ku Klux Klan (and no not member) rally years ago and there was the guy speaking letting his feelings known on certain races and Religeon.

biko

Yes - with minor restrictions

It's when people feel they can't voice their opinions and they are getting criminalised they are the most dangerous.

That the first thing the fascists do, infringe right to assembly or speech. Just look at the developments in the US or China.
To criminalise whatever you don't agree with won't remove it, it'll only drive it underground and make it harder to handle.
Even though China openly tortures Falun Gong members it doesn't stop people from joining Falun Gong. The criminalisation/tortures isn't working, it's doing the opposite! Same with the war against muslims terrorists.

AnonoBoy

Yes - with minor restrictions

Jakkass wrote: »

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

Sorry - I meant to say "I will defend to the depot the right to say it". I mean I'll head down to the Point for a march but I won't fight you.

PCPhoto

Magnus wrote: »

It's when people feel they can't voice their opinions and they are getting criminalised they are the most dangerous.

That the first thing the fascists do, infringe right to assembly or speech. Just look at the developments in the US or China.
To criminalise whatever you don't agree with won't remove it, it'll only drive it underground and make it harder to handle.
Even though China openly tortures Falun Gong members it doesn't stop people from joining Falun Gong. The criminalisation/tortures isn't working, it's doing the opposite! Same with the war against muslims terrorists.

why cant they all just get along !!!

I've stopped real scumbags from attacking people with the power of a hug

(this is still after hours isnt it)

minidazzler

Not when it offends me

Free speech is fine, but if you are calling for the lynching of someone you should be arrested regardless of if someone does it or not!

So free speech with limits IMO.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

minidazzler wrote: »

Free speech is fine, but if you are calling for the lynching of someone you should be arrested regardless of if someone does it or not!

So free speech with limits IMO.

I used to think this more too, there is a problem though. Everyone is going to suggest the limits lie where it offends them personally.

GavRedKing

Not when it offends me

Free speech with restrictions.

IMO giving everybody freedom of speech is ok in 95% of the cases but like in all races and communities and nationalities there are elements that try to use there freedom of speech to preach hate which is just a big pile of BS.

hooradiation

Free speech provided that you recognise that when your opinion is called a festering heap of malignant shit that your freedom of speech isn't being curtailed, you're just an awful person with awful opinions.

lugha

AnonoBoy wrote: »

"I abhor what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

So many of us say. In reality we wouldn't avert our eyes from our shoe laces if some biffo takes exception to some verbals from someone in the local chipper / pub.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm for it. While I hate what some people have to say, I don't think they should be silenced. (excepting the obvious incitement to hatred type, etc.)

Don't know about this incitement to hatred malarkey at all. If I proclaim to all that AnonoBoy is a bit of a dingbat or insult your religion/race/mother, and you duly thump me, then it is you and only you that should be reprimanded. Anti-incitement to hatred legislation may be a pragmatic necessity, but it's an unethical one. If you're part of a society that embraces free speech then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes people won't like what you have to say.

AnonoBoy

Yes - with minor restrictions

lugha wrote: »

So many of us say. In reality we wouldn't avert our eyes from our shoe laces if some biffo takes exception to some verbals from someone in the local chipper / pub.


Don't know about this incitement to hatred malarkey at all. If I proclaim to all that AnonoBoy is a bit of a dingbat or insult your religion/race/mother, and you duly thump me, then it is you and only you that should be reprimanded. Anti-incitement to hatred legislation may be a pragmatic necessity, but it's an unethical one. If you're part of a society that embraces free speech then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes people won't like what you have to say.

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

If you proclaimed that people should gang up and beat me to within an inch of my life then that's incitement to hatred. And I don't think anyone is willing to accept that.

(At least I hope not - what'd I ever do to you? )

Lux23

Jakkass wrote: »

There was a thread the other day about the Islamic march through Wootton Bassett when British troops were coming home from Afghanistan. Indeed, 400,000 people joined a facebook group opposing it.

It seems to me that these 400,000 people would be arguing for their right to freedom of speech were a blasphemy law brought in like in Ireland, but wouldn't be arguing for the right to freedom of speech for these protesters?

QUOTE]

I understand what your saying but those 400,000 people had the right to to express their opposition to the march just as marchers had a right to hold their march. I do believe in freedom of speech but there is a time and place for it. They could have had that march anywhere but they decided to do it where and when it would create the most upset and therefore get alot more media attention. Its the cynicism that people would have a problem with here not their views.

Antbert

Yes - with minor restrictions

It's a bit tricky. I do think overall I believe there should be across-the-board free speech. As Magnus said, all round free speech, because at least then dangerous racists make us aware of themselves. But when you get into hate speech, which in itself can be very dangerous, should that be restricted? I think that I don't think it should... There are some things that are obviously offensive but as has been pointed out (by Jakkass I think), different people will be offended by different things. And if you limit free speech based on this you don't really know where to draw the line.

Obviously to me there's a vast difference between threatening to wipe out gay people, and calling someone fat, but that vast difference can get blurred somewhere in between.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

Is criticising how one acts, or how one lives an incitement to hatred?

Lux23 wrote: »

I understand what your saying but those 400,000 people had the right to to express their opposition to the march just as marchers had a right to hold their march. I do believe in freedom of speech but there is a time and place for it. They could have had that march anywhere but they decided to do it where and when it would create the most upset and therefore get alot more media attention. Its the cynicism that people would have a problem with here not their views.

I have a right to criticism. The only reason they are interested in limiting the free speech of these protesters is because its offensive to them. Criticising the Government, the Army, the State or anything else is free reign by my book.

BlitzKrieg

Not when it offends me

Jakkass wrote: »

Is criticising how one acts, or how one lives an incitement to hatred?

not by the definition in the statuebooks you provided earlier:

with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

Public Order is a different thing than hate speech. There's another law for that, which I should really read.

lugha

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah yes but insulting my religion (if I had one) isn't incitement to hatred.

Ok. Did not know that. I assumed religion was included?

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you proclaimed that people should gang up and beat me to within an inch of my life then that's incitement to hatred. And I don't think anyone is willing to accept that.

But it is still the beating up mob who do the wrong. It is part of most people's moral framework not to murder, steal etc. Similarly they shouldn't be persuaded by others to go out and do wrong. They must be, and are, held responsible if they do. I know it's necessary to have this legislation, but I do not like.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

(At least I hope not - what'd I ever do to you? )

I know your type. You'd be looking at me sideways given half the chance. :pac:

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

hooradiation wrote: »

Free speech provided that you recognise that when your opinion is called a festering heap of malignant shit that your freedom of speech isn't being curtailed, you're just an awful person with awful opinions.

So anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person, with awful opinions?
Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with opinions you find disagreeable?

Diabhal Beag

Yes - with minor restrictions

We will never understand the value of free speech until we lose it IMO

Antbert

Yes - with minor restrictions

Jakkass wrote: »

So anyone who disagrees with you is an awful person, with awful opinions?
Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with opinions you find disagreeable?

An excellent point.

Acting on hate speech should be the crime, not the hate speech itself.

Maybe... I'm still indecisive about it.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

We will never understand the value of free speech until we lose it IMO

We don't have it fully in Ireland currently.

biko

Yes - with minor restrictions

Speaking of hate speeches:
On June 17, 1959, at a Belfast rally, Ian Paisely publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd. Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.
quote unverified

Antbert

Yes - with minor restrictions

Magnus wrote: »

Speaking of hate speeches:


On June 17, 1959, at a Belfast rally, he publicly chastised “the men of the Shankill for allowing papists, pope’s men, and papishers” to live on the Shankill Rd. Angry crowds went to the addresses called out by Paisley, burned out the occupants and looted their homes.

This is excellent. Because the public now know what he thinks. It'd be worse if they didn't.

You say unverified though so I just went on the assumption that they were true...

Edit: Sorry you edited before I replied.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

Magnus - I totally disagree with Paisley, but just because he believes the Pope to be the anti-Christ isn't good grounds to prosecute anyone.

A lot of people have views which go a lot further than what you've quoted.

The_Minister

Jakkass wrote: »

I like that quote from Voltaire, but I won't defend someone quite to the death for it.

Nit-pick: Voltaire never said that - his biographer did.

livinsane

I think "free speech" can be interpreted in two ways.

1. You have the freedom to say whatever you wish, without repercussions, as words are merely words.

2. You have the freedom to say whatever you wish but must be prepared to face the consequences that your words might cause.

Take internet blogs, facebook, whatever, you have the power to express whatever opinions however depraved/ignorant they may be, but that's not to say that you won't get the s h i t kicked out of you as a result.

davyjose

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems that free <SNIP>

FYP

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

lugha wrote: »

Ok. Did not know that. I assumed religion was included?

It is. At least the State doesn't meddle in suggesting that one should respect one attribute of ones identity above another.

minidazzler

Not when it offends me

Jakkass wrote: »

I used to think this more too, there is a problem though. Everyone is going to suggest the limits lie where it offends them personally.

Yeah, but this isn't about personal offence really. If some guy goes on the radio or on the streets and says something like "Kill a Garda, Kill Brian Lenihan" That's targeting specific people, while I believe some people deserve to die, the guy is inciting people to violence and should be detained.

It's not about offending people personally, more about offending common morals, the ones the majority hold.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

livinsane wrote: »

Take internet blogs, facebook, whatever, you have the power to express whatever opinions however depraved/ignorant they may be, but that's not to say that you won't get the s h i t kicked out of you as a result.

Nobody is arguing that people don't have a right to challenge anothers opinion. That's a part and parcel of free speech.

If you share your opinion with anyone, you should expect to be challenged. If you do not wish to be challenged any more you can simply leave and go about your business. Some people might wish to do this if people were unmannerly, started cursing, started being threatening etc. That's their personal decision.

Lux23

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that people don't have a right to challenge anothers opinion. That's a part and parcel of free speech.

If you share your opinion with anyone, you should expect to be challenged. If you do not wish to be challenged any more you can simply leave and go about your business. Some people might wish to do this if people were unmannerly, started cursing, started being threatening etc. That's their personal decision.

Well why do you have a problem with people who set up a facebook account to challenge the Islamic march that was held in the UK?

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

I disagree with it, and I am voicing my disagreement at their hypocrisy. It's basically, saying I agree with free speech until it offends me. Just because people say something doesn't mean I have to agree with it. They weren't just trying to challenge the march, they were trying to suppress it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom not to be challenged.

minidazzler wrote: »

It's not about offending people personally, more about offending common morals, the ones the majority hold.

This is scary in some respects. If a minority want to voice their opinion about something, and they disagree with something that the majority hold, they should be put down? This is already happening but do you really feel that this is right?

Edit: There is a difference between moral and legal discouragements. For example, I would deem it offensive, and unmannerly to blaspheme in public. I don't consider it something that should be illegal.

livinsane

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that people don't have a right to challenge anothers opinion. That's a part and parcel of free speech.

If you share your opinion with anyone, you should expect to be challenged. If you do not wish to be challenged any more you can simply leave and go about your business. Some people might wish to do this if people were unmannerly, started cursing, started being threatening etc. That's their personal decision.

You could argue that speech isn't free if there is the possibility of having to pay the price of your words.

minidazzler

Not when it offends me

Jakkass wrote: »

This is scary in some respects. If a minority want to voice their opinion about something, and they disagree with something that the majority hold, they should be put down? This is already happening but do you really feel that this is right?

That isn't what I was on about at all. But calling people to immoral and illegal behaviour (Such as Murder or other serious offences) Should result in an arrest IMO.

Kold

Yes - with minor restrictions

I actually think it supercedes everything. I don't even draw a line at incitement. Words hurt no one. Actions should be punished.


-oh, apart from things posing as fact like advertisement. Downright lies should be punished too.

Reflector

Not when it offends me

I believe in free speech, in private you can have whatever opinions you want but I believe that if you are using public forums to incite hatred and discrimination then there should be consequences.

All blacks should be deported or imprisoned

Vs

The immigration laws in Ireland should be revised

Now I dont agree with either statement but the person saying them could have the same opinion.
Free speech is fine......but not hate filled speech, should be a "shut the f*ck up" council of Ireland.

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

What one considers hateful differs from person to person. I personally wouldn't consider the first statement you made to be hate speech, rather just ignorance. It would be hate speech in my opinion to threaten or to insist the death of certain individuals.

jif

Id tell you but *they* would 'hear' me and wouldnt like it very much

WooPeeA

Yes - with minor restrictions

I value free speech a lot, but Ireland has no 100% free speech when it comes to journalism by the law.

irelandrover

Yes - with minor restrictions

How can you have free speech with restrictions? Surely if there are any restrictions to what you can say then it is not free speech.

bnt

Not when it offends me

I think the USA situation is interesting, and this kind of thing has been up before the US Supreme Court before. In Schenck v. United States (1919), a case about anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

In my view, the the key phrase is "clear and present danger", a phrase that (since 1919) rings alarm bells in the USA whenever it is used by a politician. (Tom Clancy looked at this in his novel of the same name, in which politicians misuse the phrase to get approval for a covert operation.) The Supreme Court judgement has been read by some as offering a way to override Constitutional free speech rights.

In Ireland, what is a "clear and present danger"? Blasphemy, apparently, poses an existential threat to the Republic, one that must be prosecuted by law. What kind of country would Ireland be, today, without the Catholic Church to give it a moral compass? Is it Blasphemy to end this post with , :eek: and :mad:?

philologos

Yes - with minor restrictions

It's not just Ireland. In practice countries might have brilliant laws concerning free speech, but they may fall short in practice.

slipss

Yes - with minor restrictions

I value free speech highly, I think anyone should be allowed to express any opinion they want. So if someone wants to say, for example, that they oppose abortion, fine. But if they lie down in the middle of the street to try and attract attention to thier opinion and I'm late for work, I will drive straight over them. If they decide to disrupt my family members funeral to shout thier opinion, whatever it may be, I will kick them till their face looks like thier intestines. Seems fair to me.

lugha

slipss wrote: »

I value free speech highly ....
I will drive straight over them ....
I will kick them till their face looks like thier intestines.

Just as well you are not agin free speech. :eek:

WooPeeA

Yes - with minor restrictions

slipss wrote: »

I value free speech highly, I think anyone should be allowed to express any opinion they want. So if someone wants to say, for example, that they oppose abortion, fine.

That's correct. We have that kind of freedom of speech in Ireland but law doesn't protect the journalists here.

For example, if you as an journalist will discover some scandal in the government then you and your source risk a case in court and maybe even a jail sentence if you're try to write about it in this country.

TPD

Yes - with minor restrictions

Jakkass wrote: »

Someone posted a video a pro-Palestine demonstrator on this forum a few months ago, and the Gard was quoting the Public Order Act, and it is actually amazing how much freedom of speech is limited in public in this country. You really ought to take a look at it for yourself particularly section 7 and 9.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/print.html

Cheers for posting that, just had a read. Mad that you could get a £500 fine and 3 months in jail for holding a sign in public which offends someone.