Free speech is it dead and buried?

[six45ive 10]

I'd like to point out that I didn't write this I'm just throwing it in for discussion. And it's certainly not simple.

 

I've just read your copy and paste and it seems to deal with unlimited speech rather than free speech.

Of course there should be laws on slander and libel as these can have serious effects on people's lives. If somebody says six45ive is a >insert expletive here< then that's not a problem, it's just somebody's rather unpleasant opinion of me. If somebody says six45ive is a paedophile then that's a statement that requires some justification because it could do serious damage to my reputation and my role of working in a school. In that situation the law quite rightly protects me.

[andysm 17]

What about the super injunction that was granted to prevent information about a particular substances possible carcinogenic properties being revealed.

 

Or the super injunction that was granted to prevent anyone from finding out that an oil company had allegedly caused widespread pollution in an African country and were trying to cover it up.

 

What about the drug companies who use threats of litigation to prevent the results of trials that show that their drugs don't work from being published.

 

I think these are the real issues.

[six45ive 10]

Here's how one of my US Fb friends outlines freedom of speech;

 

"There seems to be a lot of confusion about Free Speech. Freedom of Speech refers to a broad legal right to express oneself without fear of governmental repercussions or interference.

 

It does NOT apply to private venues.

 

It does NOT guarantee an audience, especially harassment and contact with people who don't consent.

 

It does NOT prevent social repercussions like shunning, blocking, etc...

 

It does not apply to direct threats.

 

It does not apply to libel and slander, where someone can recoup damages from specific false statements made about them. i.e. "Sam is a bitch," is an opinion you can express, "Sam stole money " will get you paying damages unless you can show it's true.

 

So is that clear?"

 

I've changed the name.

[six45ive 10]

Her reading of this

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19911943

 

brought this response;

 

"This is just EVIL!!!!! Freedom of Speech protects even the most vile speech. I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!"

[tbtc 10]

Am still waiting for the OP to come back with evidence

 

Anyhow, back to the thread "Free speech is it dead and buried?"

 

In one word, YES.

 

Angel.

 

Well, after 150 posts, the only evidence of free speech being "dead and buried" is, erm, an argument about a nursery rhyme.

 

I'm still waiting for genuine examples of free speech being curtailed.

 

Things like blacklist/ whitelist are more to do with being polite than clamping down on the freedom of expression - if free speech were genuinely banned then I think we'd be talking more serious examples than just a well meaning attempt to sound polite.

 

Put it this way, we have the BNP in the UK, we have Islam4UK (who wanted to march through Wooton Basset to protest about the Armed Forces), we have the English Defence League, we have the Unite Against Fascism mob who go round after the EDL... we have lots of extremist idiots on every side of the argument and their free speech seems protected.

 

If free speech is banned then how come the EDL were allowed their protest in Rotherham?

 

No wonder the poor kids are confused, there's not such thing as a rainbow coloured sheep...they've changed the song so it will not appear offensive to black children. This is perhaps right. But there's no need to go about it in this silly way....we all can see what's happened there. Why aren't they just honest and say..."We're not singing bar bar black sheep anymore because some of the children feel uncomfortable with it"...Everybody would agree this is the right thing to do and it would avoid all this smoke and mirrors stuff.

 

And what's the point in telling kids that budgies live on a farm...aren't there enough real farmyard animals to choose from....

 

There's no such thing as a blue sheep either it's just a daft song for kiddies that some teachers/ nurseries "extend" to cover other colours too - "black sheep" isn't banned, it's just that they sing various other colours too - presumably to educate kids about colours. Very different from being "banned".

[tbtc 10]

What about the super injunction that was granted to prevent information about a particular substances possible carcinogenic properties being revealed.

 

Or the super injunction that was granted to prevent anyone from finding out that an oil company had allegedly caused widespread pollution in an African country and were trying to cover it up.

 

What about the drug companies who use threats of litigation to prevent the results of trials that show that their drugs don't work from being published.

 

I think these are the real issues.

 

These are much more of a threat than paranoia about politically correct teachers and nursery rhymes.

 

But for some reason, the "free speech martyrs" tend to be more focussed on finding excuses for casual racism than being bothered about superinjunctions etc. Strange!

[six45ive 10]

And her reading of this

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/azhar-ahmed-army-mums-fury-1370219#comments

 

brought this response

 

"This is absolutely SICK!!!! I will NEVER go to the UK because I will never step foot in a country that does not protect FREE SPEECH!!!

 

I have the right to say things that are "grossly offensive" and yes, my country has to tolerate it!

 

Free speech does NOT come with a "responsibility" not to offend people!"

[discodown 11]

Americans are on shaky ground to say the least when it comes to civil rights or free speech. Theirs are being eroded month on month.

 

At least they are if you're black, hispanic, gay, poor, southern, been raped, pregnant or female. I wouldn't look across the pond for a barometer of how to live free or die

[mikem8634 10]

This pretty much seems to be how the UK legal framework handles freedom of expression

 

 

Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights is a qualified right and as such the right to freedom of expression may be limited. Article 10 provides that the exercise of this freedom “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities” may be limited as long as the limitation:

is prescribed by law;

is necessary and proportionate; and

pursues a legitimate aim, namely:

o the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;

o the prevention of disorder or crime;

o the protection of health or morals;

o the protection of the reputation or rights of others;

o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or

o maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA) make it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.

 

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

 

In 2006 the Racial and Religious Hatred Act amended the POA to make it an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, to use threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred.

 

In 2008 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act amended the POA to add an offence of using threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

 

The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalises ‘encouragement of terrorism’ which includes making statements that glorify terrorist acts, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.

[tinfoilhat 11]

And her reading of this

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/azhar-ahmed-army-mums-fury-1370219#comments

 

brought this response

 

"This is absolutely SICK!!!! I will NEVER go to the UK because I will never step foot in a country that does not protect FREE SPEECH!!!

 

I have the right to say things that are "grossly offensive" and yes, my country has to tolerate it!

 

Free speech does NOT come with a "responsibility" not to offend people!"

 

I think Abu hamzas 3 mates may well disagree with that statement. They said something horrible here but hosted on an American server and now face serious time !!!!

[six45ive 10]

Like some of us over here in the UK the Americans are always mindful of the erosion of free speech. They see hate speech and anti blasphemy/religion/racism laws trying to be implemented throughout the western world and they, quite rightly, don't want to go down the road to becoming a totalitarian state.

Here's what another of my US Fb friends has to say about this.

 

"One...more...time: Inoffensive speech doesn't require protection. The speech that needs protection is the speech that people want to silence. That means it's the sort of speech that ****** someone off--either a few very powerful people or a whole lot of less powerful people. But it's offending someone--and that's why it needs protection. Opinions can be ignored. You don't have to care about them. You don't have to respond to them. You can really just let people have them, express them, and not give a ****, if you like. Get over it."

 

Spot on as far as I'm concerned.

[six45ive 10]

A little bit of good news on the freedom of speech front.

 

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/wests-free-speech-stand-bars-blasphemy-ban-oic-182341074.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US