Where to draw the line on free speech?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".

Really?

The general consensus is that the concept of Free Speech isnt that difficult to understand.

:eek:

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Do you agree with the comment or not ?

And I find your comment deeply offensive , I and the other posters put a lot of efforts into our posts and to have them so trivialised is needlessly out of line .

Maybe you should be banned ?

You're taking a comment I made in another thread and introducing it completely out of context, and you expect that I should have to entertain your efforts?

If I were to strip away the context of your opinion, I could put it to you that you want to allow homophobes and racists the right to abuse and humiliate people. I know you don't obviously, but I'm going to tell you what your opinion is anyway. You'd rightly tell me where to go.

I apologise that you find my comments offensive and i see that maybe it would be best for all concerned that I leave the discussion now before I am banned.

seamus

Probably been discussed at length, but my overall view on free speech is that everyone should feel like they are permitted to say whatever they want, but with the understanding that what they say may have legal consequences.

Legally, that means that you may be sued or prosecuted if what you say causes, or intends to cause harm or detriment to someone else.

Being offended is not included in the definition of "harm". So yelling fire in a crowded cinema would leave you open to prosecution. Saying Jesus was a prick, would not.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I missed your edit -

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you straight out that I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to be able to agree that they are treated as second class citizens by standards in Saudi Arabia.

You've already formed the opinion in your mind that because I don't support free for all speech in Ireland, that I would agree that women should be treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia.

I just don't see what one has to do with the other, apart from a mere hairs breadth of a connection between them on the basis of the standard of general consensus. I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

If anyone is dodging questions here...

I'll phrase the question as such instead so as you can't offend anyone.

Do you believe (i.e your opinion) that anyone who wishes to have equal rights as others in their society, where the 'general consensus' is currently that they should not, should stop fighting for them?

I've not formed any opinions, I'm asking you to consider the implications of what you're saying regarding offering the 'general consensus' the power of censorship.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're taking a comment I made in another thread and introducing it completely out of context, and you expect that I should have to entertain your efforts?

If I were to strip away the context of your opinion, I could put it to you that you want to allow homophobes and racists the right to abuse and humiliate people. I know you don't obviously, but I'm going to tell you what your opinion is anyway. You'd rightly tell me where to go.

I apologise that you find my comments offensive and i see that maybe it would be best for all concerned that I leave the discussion now before I am banned.

What relevance if the comment if from another thread I happen to be following ? You made it so I presume you stand by it ? And it is exactly what you are arguing against here ?

No I don't want homophobes and racists to abuse people - ( why do people when they are losing an argument always gravitate towards the extremes ? Next you will bring up the paedophile literature argument .)

If I can take you back , I said we start with the principle that free speech and expression is a right and from there we make cases as to where that untrammelled right should be limited and so we have defamation laws , race laws, homophobic laws etc - so I wonder do you really read posts at all ?

And I don't find your comments in the least bit offensive , do you do irony at all ? I am just giving a simple example of how your argument would work in reality .

The curious thing is that we don't have very far to look to see what kind of society you end up with following your formula - Ireland up to 20 years ago .If you wer'nt around back then I suggest you have a review of it- not a pleasant place if you didn't fit in with 'the general consensus' you so espouse

BuilderPlumber

I believe in the right of responsible free speech. As said on another thread, this means that free speech needs to be thought of in terms of bullying, harassment, suicide, depression, spreading hatred or inspiring terror. Free speech or what is best for society? I think the following types of free speech should most certainly not be allowed:

-Radical preachers of hatred of any religion or belief. Hamza and Qatada are 2 obvious examples.
-The passing of know how to another deliberately done so and solely to inspire or commit an act of terrorism.
-Any racist or sectarian hate remarks.
-Bullying, belittling and harassment remarks.

I DON'T think any decent person who would be for free speech would want any of the above because ALL actually create an environment where there is no free speech!

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's tolerant about people who choose to humiliate other people? Do you expect that you should be able to tie their hands behind their back and kick seven colours out of them, but if they retaliate - "the bastards!".

Non-sequitur.
They didn't choose to draw a cartoon to humiliate other people. They chose to ridicule an idea, the idea that drawing a cartoon can be used to excuse violence.
You then go off asking what might happen if someone assaults someone else, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic at all.

I don't think most people would get the idea that anyone should have the right to humiliate other people tbh. That's a slippery slope.

How does drawing a cartoon humiliate anyone? You are throwing this word around because you think it sounds better than saying 'feel offended'.

Because people can choose to feel offended by anything. Yet that's what happened in this case - some people chose to be offended, a few chose to incite violence, a handful chose to commit violence. All choices, because they could not bear the idea that their belief system could be questioned by anyone else.

You're playing down the significance of CH's actions, I suppose they couldn't help themselves either.

They could, but they chose not to let threats from fanatical lunatics silence them, and that is to be admired.

If muslims said it was offensive, would you want to ban it then?

I would, because I would see it as unnecessary humiliation.

So let a fanatical minority of a minority religion (most muslims in France seem not to endorse violence against Charlie Hebdo) dictate what other people can say, because otherwise they will have an "excuse" to threaten or kill them?

Really, how can you even begin to justify that?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society. Laws are derived from the opinion of the majority in society, and the rights conferred upon all citizens of that society are balanced by their responsibility towards that society.

Oh wait, changed your mind, the majority should set the standards not a handful of murderous fanatics. Except where the handful of fanatics are muslim, then we mustn't say anything they might not like.

InTheTrees

I was wondering to myself why this thread was in the "Religion & Spirituality" section and "Atheism & Agnosticism" forum.

Shouldn't it be in Politics and Government? Or Constitutional Issues?

Or is it because Free Speech is really only an issue in the west to the slightly one track minds of those "of faith". (trying not to be too offensive here.)

Hotblack Desiato

There's no requirement to only discuss a topic in one forum. Different forums will have different perspectives

Threads do get moved if off-topic, but has anything ever been found to be off-topic in A&A?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68490605

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

[...] has anything ever been found to be off-topic in A&A?

Well, many religious claim ownership of everything, so it seems reasonable that people who reject religion should make a similar global claim, even if only that they can refute religion wherever it appears.

InTheTrees

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's no requirement to only discuss a topic in one forum. Different forums will have different perspectives

I have no problem with it being here just that it helps explain why some posters have such trouble with the concept.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

I have no problem with it being here just that it helps explain why some posters have such trouble with the concept.

Please explain further.

BuilderPlumber

marienbad wrote: »

And you don't see the inconsistency in your position ? you deem pro abortion information desirable and anti abortion information ( no matter how graphic) undesirable ?

And saying you went to the Garda is a cop out , as an aside I would say they exceeded their powers but that is Ireland for you . You decided they were unacceptable and you too steps to remove them .That makes you no different than Dr Selim Ali threatening to invoke the blasphemy law or the Iona crown running to the courts at every opportunity.

My position is quite simple , I see free speech and free expression as a right and not as a privilege . So the starting point should be nothing is forbidden - from there you give reasons as to what should be restricted and if a case is made we pass laws accordingly , thus the laws on defamation ,the anti racist laws, lots of the criminal law and so on.

So your notion of I don't like that poster but I like our poster is just thrown out the door . As is the Islamic idea of I don't like that cartoon or that book.

And not alone is it not a right not to be offended , it is our duty as responsible citizens to set out to offend .

I see free speech as something VERY similar to medicine, alcohol, guns, etc. It is something that does hold responsibilities. One has to be careful and think things through or else deal with the consequences.

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

There are laws to restrict neo-Nazis and fascists from spreading their beliefs. A state where one would be encouraged to praise the Nazi regime and spout racist agenda and that state boasting of the right of free speech is an example of this abuse. Ironically, the whole holocaust denial crowd would exactly have this argument.

Free speech does need to be monitored and those who abuse it have to live with the consequences. Free speech can get one's attention and can be useful in seeing who are terrorist-orientated in their thoughts and words.

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I see free speech as something VERY similar to medicine, alcohol, guns, etc. It is something that does hold responsibilities. One has to be careful and think things through or else deal with the consequences.

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

There are laws to restrict neo-Nazis and fascists from spreading their beliefs. A state where one would be encouraged to praise the Nazi regime and spout racist agenda and that state boasting of the right of free speech is an example of this abuse. Ironically, the whole holocaust denial crowd would exactly have this argument.

Free speech does need to be monitored and those who abuse it have to live with the consequences. Free speech can get one's attention and can be useful in seeing who are terrorist-orientated in their thoughts and words.

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

So who decides when it is bullying or harassment ?

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

Two gay men walking down the street holding hands would be considered deliberately offensive by some.
Would you consider the people being offended as victims of bullying?

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

If they weren't given high profile access to the media and to our democratic processes then I'd be happy to ignore them.

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Two gay men walking down the street holding hands would be considered deliberately offensive by some.
Would you consider the people being offended as victims of bullying?

No. This is not deliberately offensive. They are in a relationship and they holding hands is not aimed at bullying anyone obviously.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If they weren't given high profile access to the media and to our democratic processes then I'd be happy to ignore them.

Agreed. I don't see why they are given such a high profile in the media. Both are hardline and intolerant but try to hide it.

marienbad wrote: »

So who decides when it is bullying or harassment ?

When something is done deliberately to belittle another. Like the example of two gay men holding hands above is not bullying. But someone making a racist or putdown comment to another to deliberately make them feel uncomfortable clearly is.

When one feels offended by some equivalent of Irish Pictorial Weekly or other such poor satirical fare, one is giving such stuff a status it hardly deserves and gives it an edge it never had! In other words, such people (ISIS-loving fascists or not) should get a life!

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No. This is not deliberately offensive. They are in a relationship and they holding hands is not aimed at bullying anyone obviously.

What if they were doing this down a main street in Riyadh.
With the deliberate intention of making people uncomfortable and to challenge people's ideas.
Is that not being deliberately offensive?

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What if they were doing this down a main street in Riyadh.
With the deliberate intention of making people uncomfortable and to challenge people's ideas.
Is that not being deliberately offensive?

Riyadh is the capital of a country ruled currently by fascists. Gay people exist in this country, so do broadminded people. I bet that over 90% of the people in Saudi Arabia and especially its cities are 100% fed up with decades of repressive fascism where a repressive voodooism hides corruption. Would this offend the fascists if 2 men held hands? No. They would instead pretend to be and then would kill or jail them once again to frighten the people into obedience of their evil regime.

Standing up to fascist dictatorships is 100% the right thing to do. This is NOT bullying but standing up to a bully. In fact, all women in such countries should wear their hair uncovered, etc. and everyone should start drinking and give their idiot rulers a message that their voodoo has no legitimacy whatsoever and is imposed only to keep the people poor. You can bet the rulers of places like Saudi Arabia have a VERY different lifestyle to the ones they impose on their poor people.

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Would this offend the fascists if 2 men held hands? No.

I think this would definitely offend people.
I specifically choice Saudi Arabia as a place that would have a lower tolerance of overt homosexuality.
My whole point being that, just because you are being deliberately offensive does not necessarily mean you're bullying someone.

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think this would definitely offend people.
I specifically choice Saudi Arabia as a place that would have a lower tolerance of overt homosexuality.
My whole point being that, just because you are being deliberately offensive does not necessarily mean you're bullying someone.

And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not. The right to stand up to thuggery and to have a government answerable to the people is something a person should be able to do no matter where they are from.

Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not. The right to stand up to thuggery and to have a government answerable to the people is something a person should be able to do no matter where they are from.

Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.

So who decides what is bullying and/or harassment ?

BuilderPlumber

marienbad wrote: »

So who decides what is bullying and/or harassment ?

It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.

It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?

obplayer

Originally Posted by BuilderPlumber View Post
It is obvious when you see something that is bullying or harassment and it is obvious when you see something that is not.

Satan is real and Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc. are 100% proof of this. Making a statement about a satanist regime like the above is an example of something that would offend devil worshipping terrorists and fascists. The same evil lowlives who bully and harass and who do not value life.

ISIS shooting someone dead because they disagree with their satanic cult is an example of the 2 sides of the same coin.

marienbad wrote: »

It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?

So two gay men are walking down the street holding hands and kissing. A religious person attempts to intervene because he / she finds this offensive and bullying because it is attempting to force him / her to accept something unacceptable. A policeman intervenes because he / she sees a possible breech of the peace by the religious person. Which of these people is being bullied here?

Alexis Sanchez

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not.

Abuse religion?? If you weren't so naive you'd realise it's religion that abuses the people; brainwashing people into believing that "god" forbids sodomy and sex before marriage, among with a whole host of oppressive instructions.

I saw your idiotic thread in the Politics Café, where you blame America for ISIS, among other stupid statements. ISIS are trying to create a caliphate. If you follow that Wikipedia link, you'll see a list of caliphates in the past and they existed long before America was discovered. ISIS exist because of Islam. The prophet of Islam was a military general who raised an army and conquered Arabia, thus forcing everyone in the region to convert to Islam. Successive caliphs then took over from Muhammad and continued to spread Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Does that sound familiar to you? The leader of ISIS is just a modern Muhammad.

BuilderPlumber

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Abuse religion?? If you weren't so naive you'd realise it's religion that abuses the people; brainwashing people into believing that "god" forbids sodomy and sex before marriage, among with a whole host of oppressive instructions.

I saw your idiotic thread in the Politics Café, where you blame America for ISIS, among other stupid statements. ISIS are trying to create a caliphate. If you follow that Wikipedia link, you'll see a list of caliphates in the past and they existed long before America was discovered. ISIS exist because of Islam. The prophet of Islam was a military general who raised an army and conquered Arabia, thus forcing everyone in the region to convert to Islam. Successive caliphs then took over from Muhammad and continued to spread Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Does that sound familiar to you? The leader of ISIS is just a modern Muhammad.

Religion is a product of its times. And my thread is not 'idiotic' as you say. I am fully aware of religion's history and am fully aware of the complexities of different issues.

I have said many times I am NOT the typical 'blame everything on America' type. Either am I going to pretend all that America (or any world power for that matter) does is always the right thing.

Mohammed was a rebel leader. So too was Jesus. So too was Pearse and Connolly. Christianity, Islam, etc. were always as much political as religious. I am aware of previous Islamic caliphates and am also aware that many of them were preferable to what was going on in medieval Christianity. I am aware that every religion is a product of its times as said meaning that the values of that time are what is written down. Are they the law of god? No, they are the laws of a rebel movement. Some good, some not.

ISIS are an evil terrorist group and regimes like Saudi Arabia are almost as vile. They use Islam but are inherently voodoo (meaning tribal based) and are satanic in nature. Religion sometimes abuses people yes but that does not stop evil people abusing religion and adding to it.

Anyone who does not see America's role in helping spread what we now call 'Islamic fundamentalism' (IF) has their head buried in the sand. I have never said it was the only helper of it. But it helped. IF was always there but it was helped along the way by US support for the Afghan resistance, the various wars against Iraq and the whole Israel v Palestine conflict. Colonialism by various European powers also added to it and IF became (along with pan Africanism, Arab nationalism, etc.) part of the wider anti-imperialism movements. To balance things out, it was also encouraged by the actions of the USSR (Afghan invasion and suppression of religious freedom), modern day Russia (the Chechnya wars), support from the Nazis, secular dictators and traditional hatred between factions.

But black magic/voodoo based warped religion is a problem problem. It took many years and many poor decisions (by America, USSR, other powers and by the countries themselves) to form. But it does need to be sorted. Again, I am not against every war. Preferably, there should be no war but I support one to eradicate ISIS or al Qaeda as they are a grave threat to everyone. The 2003 Iraq invasion on the other hand was totally the wrong thing to do. It made things much worse. The old argument is that in 30 years time, Iraq will be democratic and 'it will all be worth it'. The lyrics of Paul Brady's The Island come to mind ... 40-50 years of hell to turn a place into a democracy in the future is no comfort for those who have to live through the hell that is modern day Iraq.

People can make up their own mind about things like sex before marriage. Pragmatic reasons rather than religious dictate more to why people choose not to.

BuilderPlumber

marienbad wrote: »

It is not obvious , you are just focusing on the extremes . Take a different example - the so 'Gay Agenda'- quite a few people and organisations in this country find any gay expression offensive . What should we do about that ?

Truly offensive things are extremes. Anyone who finds minor things offensive simply have nothing better to do with their time and their lives are empty.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Truly offensive things are extremes. Anyone who finds minor things offensive simply have nothing better to do with their time and their lives are empty.

You are not answering my question , and this is my third time asking , So again who decides what is bullying and/or offensive ?

And forget Isis and the extremes, we all know the answer to that, but things like a cartoon or a book or a poster in Western Europe today .

porsche959

The Abuse of Satire
Garry Trudeau on Charlie Hebdo, free-speech fanaticism, and the problem with “punching downward”

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/?utm_source=SFTwitter

obplayer

porsche959 wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/?utm_source=SFTwitter

Some clarifications.

Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence.

By inciting we mean directly telling or suggesting to people that they should be violent, not just upsetting them to the point where they choose to be violent.

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain

One does not have to offend but that does not mean one should not be allowed to offend. The offendees are indeed allowed to feel outrage and pain. They are not allowed to assault / kill the offender.

The only acceptable response to offence is to be similarly offensive. This means that a response which includes physical violence is only acceptable when the original offense included or threatened physical violence.

zeffabelli

obplayer wrote: »

Some clarifications.



By inciting we mean directly telling or suggesting to people that they should be violent, not just upsetting them to the point where they choose to be violent.



One does not have to offend but that does not mean one should not be allowed to offend. The offendees are indeed allowed to feel outrage and pain. They are not allowed to assault / kill the offender.

The only acceptable response to offence is to be similarly offensive. This means that a response which includes physical violence is only acceptable when the original offense included or threatened physical violence.

Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you, it doesn't guarantee people won't hate your guts for the stuff you come out with.

You may be entitled to express yourself but you are not entitled to an audience or anyone's approval.

obplayer

zeffabelli wrote: »

Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you, it doesn't guarantee people won't hate your guts for the stuff you come out with.

You may be entitled to express yourself but you are not entitled to an audience or anyone's approval.

You are entitled to not having your potential audience reduced to zero by law because someone may be offended. As for approval, no one can demand or even necessarily expect that.

An article on a closely related area.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/katie-hopkins/katie-hopkins-trolling_b_7040890.html?utm_hp_ref=beyond-the-ballot

"Reported!" they tweet, followed with a snazzy tag for @metpoliceuk.

A huge number of my tweets cause people to take offence and go running to the boys in blue to share their outrage.

I have been reported for everything from ebola to the Palestine conflict, from fascism to anti-Semitism and am yet to see the benefit of this to the British taxpayer. Even Simon Danczuk (the MP for Rochdale) went crawling off to his local IPCC mate to see if an offence had been committed when he didn't like my feed.

But I remain unconvinced. Twitter is not the business of the police, and users should not be reporting people for what they say.

New communication laws have curtailed our right to talk freely. As one detective inspector explained on my phone at 2am: "people have taken offence, and therefore an offence may have been committed".

This sums up Nation Outrage perfectly.

However, the distinction between what is offensive (legal) or grossly offensive (illegal) is a fine line - and a subjective one - which protects our right to freedom of expression: "that includes the right to say things or express opinions... that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population."

We have to accept that opinions are not right or wrong. No one is the guardian of the correct answer. This is not and exam and you are not the invigilator.

People's usual grounds for establishing whether something is right or wrong is whether they agree with it personally. If they agree - it is right. If they disagree - it is wrong. This is an arbitrary system based on their own dubious beliefs.

I believe we should all be free to say as we please. As long as we are prepared to accept there is an equal and opposing view and respect the right of others to disagree.

You cannot oblige people to conform. This predilection for group-think became woefully apparent during the IVF debate between Dolce and Gabbana and Elton John.

No matter with whom you agree, both have an equal right to a view and we should be tolerant of it. Demanding a boycott in response to an opinion is one step away from censorship.

Life is not a beauty pageant and you cannot demand the beauty pageant answer. I don't want to save the world or negotiate world peace. And I look crap in swim wear. Deal with it.

I just want to continue to have my basic human right to say what I think on Twitter.

If you disagree and your best comeback is that you are going to rape me with a machete - then that is indicative of your lack of intelligence.

But be reassured. I won't be reporting you to the police. I am holding on to the belief they have better things to do. I suspect you still live at home with your mum and floss your teeth with your toe nails.

If you can't handle the debate, stay away from Twitter. If you want to scream "Reported!", be sure to copy @metpoliceuk. You never know, it might make you feel powerful.

Beyond The Ballot is The Huffington Post UK's alternative take on the General Election, taking on the issues too awkward for Westminster. It focuses on the unanswered questions around internet freedom, mental health and housing. Election news, blogs, polls and predictions are combined with in-depth coverage of our three issues including roundtable debates, MP interviews and analysis

zeffabelli

obplayer wrote: »

You are entitled to not having your potential audience reduced to zero by law because someone may be offended. As for approval, no one can demand or even necessarily expect that.

I phrased that badly. What I mean was, one may have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

obplayer

zeffabelli wrote: »

I phrased that badly. What I mean was, one may have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

Fine, then don't.

Hotblack Desiato

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.

What is all this nonsense about satanism for?

BuilderPlumber

marienbad wrote: »

You are not answering my question , and this is my third time asking , So again who decides what is bullying and/or offensive ?

And forget Isis and the extremes, we all know the answer to that, but things like a cartoon or a book or a poster in Western Europe today .

Who actually decides? Ultimately, the courts or legal system. This will differentiate the easily offended from the bullied. Anyone who is offended by what most would call tame satire frankly has nothing to do and is trying to find things to fill their empty lives.

BuilderPlumber

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What is all this nonsense about satanism for?

Satanism exists. Call it what you want but it is everywhere. The spirit of evil. It often hides behind religious or other systems of belief. It corrupts, destroys, kills and represses. It takes advantage of free speech yet silences discenting voices. It pretends to be on the side of the weak while it aids the strong. It unfortunately is not nonsense but is very real. Graham Dwyer, ISIS, Joe Reilly, LRA and Boko Haram are a few examples. Try telling relatives of its victims that it is nonsense. It is a depraved reality and is not confined to one culture, race or creed.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Who actually decides? Ultimately, the courts or legal system. This will differentiate the easily offended from the bullied. Anyone who is offended by what most would call tame satire frankly has nothing to do and is trying to find things to fill their empty lives.

There you go then , this is what we were saying pages back, say what you like and if you step over the line let the law decide. Let the offended just be offended and the rest us get on with our lives

Hotblack Desiato

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Satanism exists. Call it what you want but it is everywhere. The spirit of evil. It often hides behind religious or other systems of belief. It corrupts, destroys, kills and represses. It takes advantage of free speech yet silences discenting voices. It pretends to be on the side of the weak while it aids the strong. It unfortunately is not nonsense but is very real. Graham Dwyer, ISIS, Joe Reilly, LRA and Boko Haram are a few examples. Try telling relatives of its victims that it is nonsense. It is a depraved reality and is not confined to one culture, race or creed.

I'm hardly going to take your word for it any more than I would if you said god exists. It's irrelevant to this discussion imho anyway.

expectationlost

Shameful new blasphemy law introduced “by the back door” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1508/S00077/shameful-new-blasphemy-law-introduced-by-the-back-door.htm Communication principles
6 Communication principles New Zealand's Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 Principle 10
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html

A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

denigrate vs incite hate

denigrate
to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate

magicbastarder

that's technically not blasphemy though, no?
blasphemy is insulting a religion, and that seems to be about attacking the person.

not that it necessarily makes good law anyway.