Free speech is it dead and buried?

[truman 10]

The only time I've seen free speech curtailed was when that old guy was thrown out of the Labour conference a few years ago...

[dafodil 10]

Especially as the call for people to stop posting comes from the OP whose original thread was complaining about free speech being curtailed by the PC Brigade. So maybe dafodil has joined the PC Brigade.

Do not be a silly Billy ,I have not joined the politically correct brigade I was just fed up with people going on about a hundred year old nursery rhyme and used my free speech in saying so.

Oh I have just thought on! its about time people stopped using obscene language in every day conversation I would ban that most definitely .

[tbtc 10]

I have just thought on! its about time people stopped using obscene language in every day conversation I would ban that most definitely .

 

So, other than finding things that you would like to ban, have you found any better examples of free speech being curtailed yet?

[mikem8634 10]

The only time I've seen free speech curtailed was when that old guy was thrown out of the Labour conference a few years ago...

 

Nice one Truman - I'd forgotten about that - shocking!

[dafodil 10]

So, other than finding things that you would like to ban, have you found any better examples of free speech being curtailed yet?

You are just trying to start an argument and if I respond how I would like to then the thread would be in danger of being closed, so yes I have.

This may I add is not the fault of this forum who make their rules perfectly clear to all who join.

[woodmally 10]

So, other than finding things that you would like to ban, have you found any better examples of free speech being curtailed yet?

 

What about this then for an example.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law

 

We only have a few examples of this as the rest are banned from even mentioning them.

[boyfriday 21]

What about this then for an example.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law

 

We only have a few examples of this as the rest are banned from even mentioning them.

 

But seriously, how does that curtail your freedoms? As others have pointed out, the salacious revelations regarding Premiership footballers and television presenters is hardly in the public interest, especially when they're disputed as they are in cases were super injunctions have been granted. If they were being used to curtail the pursuit of serious investigative journalism where the outcome might have some bearing on the population as a whole then that might be a different matter.

[woodmally 10]

But seriously, how does that curtail your freedoms? As others have pointed out, the salacious revelations regarding Premiership footballers and television presenters is hardly in the public interest, especially when they're disputed as they are in cases were super injunctions have been granted. If they were being used to curtail the pursuit of serious investigative journalism where the outcome might have some bearing on the population as a whole then that might be a different matter.

 

 

Well have a look at this example see what you think of this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction

 

I think this certainly is in the public interest as its gross neglegence by a company. Whats worrying is the ones we know about are the tip of the iceberg. How many of these events do we not know about or cant talk about.

[mikem8634 10]

Well have a look at this example see what you think of this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction

 

I think this certainly is in the public interest as its gross neglegence by a company. Whats worrying is the ones we know about are the tip of the iceberg. How many of these events do we not know about or cant talk about.

 

I'll admit I do have a few concerns regarding super-injunctions simply because they seem to only be available at a price most of us cannot afford. I think the whole gagging order scenario will continue to hit the political fan for a while to come yet.

[six45ive 10]

I think these are the kind of things that are being considered as eroding the principles of freedom of expression -

 

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

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-teenager-jailed-facebook

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

 

I don't agree. I have said in many previous posts that freedom of expression comes with necessary limitations and a codicil of responsibility and I feel the law should step in when people fail to operate with any sense of responsibility. Law has always been a reflection of the generally accepted moral code and how it frames our co-operative society. I feel we are now seeing the law begin to catch up with electronic media in the digital age. The problems arise regarding exactly where to draw the lines as that is when subjectivity enters the picture but it has to be drawn somewhere.

 

I still don't think anyone has provided any evidence that freedom of expression is under threat but I do feel that in our society we have seen a good few examples of the irrational and fictional belief that freedom of expression equates to being allowed to say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want without any reprisal or consequence. That is simply not true.

 

All of those links are clear examples of the regressive nature of how freedom of speech is seen in the UK today.

As one of my US Fb friends so succinctly put it;

"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."

[mikem8634 10]

All of those links are clear examples of the regressive nature of how freedom of speech is seen in the UK today.

As one of my US Fb friends so succinctly put it;

"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."

 

That sounds a bit like suggesting that offence is an inherently good thing in and of itself. Offence is not the same as an ideological challenge.

 

Your American friend alludes to power and suggests it can be wielded by the powerful few or the less powerful many. What do you suggest we do when the vulnerable few are targeted?

[six45ive 10]

That sounds a bit like suggesting that offence is an inherently good thing in and of itself. Offence is not the same as an ideological challenge.

 

The problem here is with the word 'offence.' It's a very subjective term and is the crux of the argument in why somebody expressing an opinion about being glad that two police officers are dead or making jokes about April Jones should be protected from prosecution.

For example I, as an atheist, am just as offended every day of my life when I hear some religious person spout bigotted, racist, sexist or homophobic nonsense from their holy book. I can assure you it offends me just as much as a joke about Madelaine McCann might offend somebody else. But do I want to stop somebody from expressing their bigotted views? Of course not. How dare my offence take some kind of precedence over somebody else's deeply held beliefs. It quite simply doesn't.

I have three choices; ignore it, argue against it or ridicule it.

Free speech doesn't have to be good or bad. It can be either, both or neither. If it isn't then it's not free.

 

Your American friend alludes to power and suggests it can be wielded by the powerful few or the less powerful many. What do you suggest we do when the vulnerable few are targeted?

 

Grow a pair of balls is probably what she would suggest but it depends what you mean by beng targeted. This comes back once again to the 'contact' argument. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) all of the examples in your links were people who hadn't directly targeted any of the relatives concerned. They'd simply worn a t-shirt or put comments on their Fb page (not the families concerned) and so the comments can be ignored. Nobody's forcing the families to listen to these views.

Edited October 17, 2012 by six45ive