UK, and USA, Voting FPTP Systems
- Thread starter wacko
- Start date
Nick_G
pfm Member
Well, given that hate speech can lead to violence, persecution and murder of the groups targeted (for example ethnic, religious or LGBT minorities), then I'd say it was perfectly reasonable to make it illegal. In the worse case scenarios hate speech has ultimately led to genocide.
Do you have a problem with that?
Cheese
Bitter lover
It was a factor, but one among many others. The economic and political situation in Europe was far from stable in the early thirties, without this there wouldn’t have been a Hitler and his crazy speeches.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Donald Trump exercised his right of free speech to incite insurrection and five people died. Would you tell the bereaved families that his right was more important than their loved ones’ right to life?
Cheese
Bitter lover
I guess we are mixing things up here. The term’Free speech’ is used in relationship with expressing an opinion. What Trump said was an incitement, as such it was just another stupid move of his.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
You are limiting the scope of the right, on spurious grounds, I think.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I'm not sure anyone is arguing for unlimited free speech with no consequences, rather than simply trying to define terms. There are limits on free speech in every country that I can think of. That is a fact. Some of those limits might be necessary, or desirable, but the limits vary from country to country. In some countries for example, it is a crime to speak disparagingly of the monarch/the head of state, but not in the UK. As I understand it, the Scottish government is legislating for 'hate crimes' which will widen the scope of what is regarded as 'hate speech'.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Avole seems definitely to be arguing for unlimited free speech as far as I can tell.
Then you can't tell much at all. Of course I am arguing for free speech, as you should be too. Do you not see that ?
Whether free speech will happen during my lifetime I strongly doubt, especially with people such as yourself who can't even understand why it should be a goal, and are in fact arguing for controls on what people are allowed to say.
Have a happy life.
Whether free speech will happen during my lifetime I strongly doubt, especially with people such as yourself who can't even understand why it should be a goal, and are in fact arguing for controls on what people are allowed to say.
Have a happy life.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I said ‘Avole is arguing for unlimited free speech’. You replied ‘I am arguing for [unlimited] free speech, why can you not see that?’
You clearly don’t understand what I have said, despite my saying it in very simple terms.
Or you are trolling.
Either way, other readers of this thread are capable of deciding who is arguing what; and if you are not, I refuse to let you make it my problem.,
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I doubt Socrates would agree with your first point. There's also a distinction between what you are 'allowed' to say without fear of legal sanction, and what it is 'acceptable' to say in a certain situation. (I doubt anyone saying OMG in the USA would be at any risk of arrest, for example). This is the distinction which is proving troublesome in attempts to legislate against 'hate speech'; should it extent to remarks which offend certain groups, or should it only cover speech which directly encourages violence against others?
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I said ‘Avole is arguing for unlimited free speech’. You replied ‘I am arguing for [unlimited] free speech, why can you not see that?’
You clearly don’t understand what I have said, despite my saying it in very simple terms.
Or you are trolling.
Either way, other readers of this thread are capable of deciding who is arguing what; and if you are not, I refuse to let you make it my problem.,
I'm completely confused now, but there's nothing new in that!
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I suspect you might have that in common with Avole, then!
In summary, Avole seems to be arguing that free speech is not actually free speech if there are any constraints on its limits. It’s a point of view, and I’m sure it’s one that has kept undergraduate philosophy tutorials going for decades. But in the real world, you can enshrine a ‘right’ of free speech, while also setting reasonable and necessary limits to what may be said. Just as with pretty much any human right, there are limits to how it may be exercised, in the interests of a well-ordered society. Absolutist views like Avole’s (and there’s another fishie who argues for total transparency from government) are, IMHO, naive and rarely acknowledge the bigger picture.
Thorn
pfm Member
So you believe in the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema then.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Has he gone?
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Cheese
Bitter lover
Again, shouting ‘fire’ in a cinema is not uttering an opinion.
We certainly all agree on the damage of epic proportions you can provoke by saying, or not saying something at a given moment. No one, left or right, will ever stand for the right to tell a blind person to cross the road just when a lorry approaches, it’s not political it’s common sense.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But the 'right to free speech' is, as Avole tried to argue it, a right to say anything you like without any constraint at all. And if there are things you can't say, then you don't have 'free speech'. So, he would argue that preventing somebody from telling a blind person it was safe to cross the road, when it clearly was not, would be a limit on their right to free speech. It's an absurd argument, but it's what he was effectively saying.
I don't agree that the right to free speech is simply the right to express an opinion. There are things we say which are not always simply our opinion. We may say things we don't believe, just to provoke an argument or a discussion. That's not expressing our opinion. We may say something because we think we will benefit from the outcome, that's not necessarily an opinion. Politicians do this all the time. We have the right to do such things, but only within limits described by the law.
In point of fact, the term 'free speech' has been replaced by 'freedom of expression' in many regimes these days, which also reinforces my point that it's not just about voicing an opinion. It is about imparting or receiving information in one form or another.
Cav
pfm Member
Anyone in this country can say what he wants, in that respect we have free speech. However there are laws which could punish someone for exercising that right. The timid will call that a limitation to freedom of speech, the bold will ignore it.
In practice we do not have true freedom of speech here.
In practice we do not have true freedom of speech here.