Freedom Of Speech.

[cuttsie 1,091]

So do you think that we should base our society's values around the actions of gangsta rap?

Paul Robeson.

[Halibut 12]

Paul Robeson.

 

What about him?

[cuttsie 1,091]

What about him?

He was not a gangsta rapper or whatever they are called.

[Lucy75 10]

That's sounds like rhubarb to me. What you want is anarchy.

 

On the contrary I am happy with the current system in which we do not have freedom of speech.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 08:40 ----------

 

May 2010, so he's not still waiting. You could at least find out the end of the example...

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 07:26 ----------

 

Of course that doesn't demonstrate that there are any illegal words, which is what you were responding to. I've said multiple times that hate speech legislation limits what you can say.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 07:31 ----------

 

 

It might not "prove" that he didn't break the law, but equally it doesn't prove that he did.

And since we don't have a rash of prosecutions over the last 5 years against people claiming that homosexuality is a sin, I'd suggest that it is an opinion you can share with practically no risk of arrest. So a poor example, created by a PCSO who over interpreted the bounds of the law.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 07:33 ----------

 

 

If you make a bomb threat or incite hatred then you'll likely end up being arrested.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 07:35 ----------

 

 

You're correct, but you're not really (and haven't really) responded to the OP.

 

Have a closer look at what he said and see if you agree.

 

The fact he was arrested, charged and taken to court is evidence that what he said was in fact against the law, it was only dropped because of lack of evidence and not because there was no case to answer.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 08:44 ----------

 

Yes they are

 

Everyone is entitled to say whatever the hell they like - as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedom of another individual

 

Simples

 

Freedom of an another individual to do what?

[L00b 441]

OK so we are not allowed to express our opinions about other people because doing so could be defamation or slander, more examples of why we do not have freedom of speech.

Bit in bold - there's nothing to stop you voicing that opinion at all. But it is your personal responsibility to ensure that your opinion is sufficiently informed that you hold it to be true. That's a responsibility you owe to yourself, because spouting ill-informed rubbish about other people carries personal consequences (e.g. a sentence for libel or slander, with damages <etc>). It always has, and so it should.

 

It's only defamation or slander if your opinion is factually wrong.

 

And there is a centuries-old civil judicial system in place in the UK (and elsewhere) to ensure that, if someone sues you for defamation or slander, you can defend and defeat their claim on the basis of such facts.

 

So why would you want to voice an opinion about a person which could be factually wrong, knowing that if it is wrong, it will damage the person's reputation?

 

Or should there be no consequences to spouting ill-informed rubbish that causes actual damage?

 

Solomon1 asked you that very question in post #58, and I don't think you've posted a reply.

 

As for the rest and the very notion of freedom..."la liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres" (the freedom of anyone stops where the freedom of others begins). Attributed to John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). That's (IMHO) the best delineation between socially-responsible freedom (to say or do anything) and outright anarchy.

Edited March 17, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

On the contrary I am happy with the current system in which we do not have freedom of speech.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 08:40 ----------

 

 

The fact he was arrested, charged and taken to court is evidence that what he said was in fact against the law, it was only dropped because of lack of evidence and not because there was no case to answer.

No, a conviction would be evidence that what he did was against the law.

The police arrest people all the time for things that are not against the law.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 09:46 ----------

 

I already posted an example and a link.

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2015 at 22:22 ----------

 

 

OK so we are not allowed to express our opinions about other people because doing so could be defamation or slander, more examples of why we do not have freedom of speech.

 

You are free to have (and to express) opinions about other users. Slander and libel occur when you make untrue statements about someone, an opinion, stated as such, cannot be untrue.

 

Did you go back and read the OP by the way?

[WeedNoMore 10]

 

If you make a bomb threat or incite hatred then you'll likely end up being arrested.

Freedom of speech does not include having the right to make people fearful of their lives.

[Cyclone 10]

Freedom of speech does not include having the right to make people fearful of their lives.

 

Absolute freedom would include that. Clearly we only enjoy a limited freedom of speech. Which I happen to agree with.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 10:04 ----------

 

if people said exactly what they thought most of them would be jailed?

 

The OP said this though, which I think is incorrect. Most people have no desire to make bomb threats or to spout hate speech.

 

Note that the OP hasn't been back to comment or reply to any of these points.

[WeedNoMore 10]

Absolute freedom would include that. Clearly we only enjoy a limited freedom of speech. Which I happen to agree with.

 

Go on, ill agree with that when you put it that way. I happen to feel that i personally have absolute freedom of speech though but then like you i dont have a desire to make bomb threats.

[ronthenekred 10]

Go on, ill agree with that when you put it that way. I happen to feel that i personally have absolute freedom of speech though but then like you i dont have a desire to make bomb threats.

 

You're right you do have absolute freedom of speech in the same way you have absolute freedom to commit murder or anything else for that matter. What you don't have is absolute freedom to control the consequences by law of those actions.

 

Freedom and absolute freedom are two different concepts. One holds you to account, the other doesn't unless you adhere to total unaccountable anarchy. Personal freedom is set within the boundaries of collective freedom.

Edited March 17, 2015 by ronthenekred

[Lucy75 10]

No, a conviction would be evidence that what he did was against the law.

The police arrest people all the time for things that are not against the law.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 09:46 ----------

 

 

You are free to have (and to express) opinions about other users. Slander and libel occur when you make untrue statements about someone, an opinion, stated as such, cannot be untrue.

 

Did you go back and read the OP by the way?

 

So in your world someone as only acted against the law once they are convicted?

I haven't said anything to the contrary, but I did point out that it is further evidence that people aren't allowed to say what ever they want, ergo not freedom of speech.

 

If freedom of speech comes with conditions then every human on the planet has freedom and speech which makes it a pointless concept.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Hasn't anyone twigged yet? That an old friend has decided to re-join us?