Free speech

[Snoopy]

Is freedom of speech a principle to be extended to all?

BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | Angry scenes greet Oxford debate

"The debate at the Oxford Union featuring BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving highlights fundamental questions about the limits to free speech. Some protestors called for the debate to be cancelled, both because it might offend people and because it could stir up racial hatred.
But there are others who think people should be allowed to say whatever they think - regardless of the offence it might cause, and even if there is a potential threat to public order."

s.

(for non-UK members, BNP stands for British National Party)

[wil]

Generally in the US it has been deemed that your rights end when they begin to interfere with the rights of the whole.

ie yelling fire in a theater is not covered under free speech.

but KKK marching and chanting racist slogans is

and of course we have that angry church crowd

which also allows the crowd they are angry with to march.

So our free speech is ok when it is inciteful to few, but not free when it causes inherent danger to many.

As for the topic in question, I am of the opinion that we should give holocaust deniers the platform and plenty of airtime. Enough so that they can be identified for what they are. So their misguided notions are publicly discussed and countered and eventually the end of all this will be in sight.

[17th Angel]

If you are having a freedom of speech you have the freedom to dislike anyone for any minor reason.... I decide I do not like blacks and I will stand in public and preach it or whatever, that should be as acceptable as someone going into public and speaking in protest/support of abortion/taxes/politics/religions/whatever... You want freedom? You have to give all freedom, if some can speak yet some voices are made silent you are lying about freedom to voice your opinion you are manipulating freedom. Freedom is for all, everyone has a voice, and everyone should have the right to use it. Not just some, unless you want a covert dictatorship....

[Francis king]

hello snoopy...

"Is freedom of speech a principle to be extended to all?"

it should be, but isn't... it doesn't even happen in forums such as this- seen any locked posts recently?

exactly...

if freedom of speech is something which we, as a society, wants, (and I do)then unfortunately we have to allow everyone's voice to be heard, even if what they say is unpalatable to us, even if it is lies, even if it has a negative effect on others...

if we don't allow everyone to speak we will evetually lose something of our own freedoms.

If some ppl lose their voice, then we all will. Somebody somewhere will decide what you are allowed and not allowed to say, what is acceptable, what is not... that might be okay where I live (for now), but... what happens to all those voters who are not Xtian far right in say, the US? What happens to the ppl in China who find the regime harsh and oppressive? What happens to the english teacher who calls the teddy bear Mohammed?

However, I would have hoped that in an educational establishment, especially a high profile one like Oxford, there should be some rule whereby speakers such as these are not allowed onto the platform in the first place.

David Irving and Nick Griffin? On the same stage? But no jewish presence, no opposition, no balance of views presented, at one of the top universities in the country, where our intellectuals are educated... u know, the ppl who will run the country.... somebody phoned them and hired them! they don't come to talk for free- you at least have to provide them with food and accommodation...

of course, that seems contradictory, but it isn't. If you want to deny the holocaust, you should be able to, but I personally would not pay to see it. If you want to have a religious cult, fine, but again, I will not allow you to use my function rooms to hold it.

I can make that decision without curtailing your right to say what you like, surely?

what makes me laugh most of all is...

a few weeks ago (?) a young man was maced in the face during a public lecture, for heckling...last week a young woman was charged under the Terrorism Act for writing jihadi poetry and posting it on forums and having dodgy pals...

so, it's okay to censor this man, who was simply heckling, he wasn't "tooled up", he did not have socks full of semtex, and its okay to censor this woman, who was simply writing poetry, and make her a terrorist, but in the same breath it's also okay to support the lucrative careers of a second rate fascist politician, and a holocaust denier in the same week...

but hang on... its not the same is it?

and it isn't the same because, well, the ordinary man and woman did not use such lyrical nuances, they did not rely on double-speak and pretence, they were quite open about who they were and what they wanted...

David Irving denies the holocaust was as bad as the jews reckoned it was, but hey.. that's okay... because he's an intellectual and sells books... so we have some justification for giving him air time or library shelf space... Nick Griffin will assure everyone who listens that he isn't a racist, he poured over Mein Kampf as a child for more lofty reasons, but it's okay to fund his political party becuase he's a politician... both of them are very careful about what they say, in case they incite ppl to racial hatred, in case somebody films them on their mobiles and sends it into the Daily Mirror, but... we know what they are...

if we ban them, we create press for them... we allow them to justify feeling paranoid and hateful and oppressed, we allow them to exploit this negativity...

much better it is to say... you can say what you like, but don't expect everyone to agree...

my thoughts, at least...

[wil]

Originally Posted by Francis king

"Is freedom of speech a principle to be extended to all?"

it should be, but isn't... it doesn't even happen in forums such as this-

There is no free speech in my house, I decide what is allowed to be said and what isn't. There is no free speech in my office, my boss decides where the line is. And you are correct, there is no free speech on this forum, you are free to act within the confines of the code of conduct, should one decide to go beyond those...they are raising their hand waiving a flag saying, boot me.

In any country freedom of speech is governed by that country.

So if one were to want freedom of speech, all one has to do is let it happen in their home, in their business, start their own forum or create their own country. My guess is they would soon be passing rules that would constrain full freedom of speech.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

there is no free speech on this forum, you are free to act within the confines of the code of conduct, should one decide to go beyond those...they are raising their hand waiving a flag saying, boot me.

*giggles*

[Snoopy]

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Council of Europe

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


s.

[Snoopy]

I read of a Muslim group (can’t remember which one) supporting the Oxford Union debate going ahead, because of the belief in the right of freedom of expression for all (obviously), rather than what the debaters may say. The spokesperson said something like “you either have freedom of speech for everyone or you have freedom of speech for no-one.”

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

However, I would have hoped that in an educational establishment, especially a high profile one like Oxford, there should be some rule whereby speakers such as these are not allowed onto the platform in the first place.

Hi Francis,

Doesn’t this kind of contradict what you’ve said preceding this, you know promoting freedom of speech?

David Irving and Nick Griffin? On the same stage? But no jewish presence, no opposition, no balance of views presented

I think a variety of speakers were due to attend: "They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner," he (Luke Tryl, president of the Oxford Union Debating Society) said.

If you want to have a religious cult, fine, but again, I will not allow you to use my function rooms to hold it.

I can make that decision without curtailing your right to say what you like, surely?

But if everyone with a function room made the same decision, how would views to which you are opposed be heard in public?

Just a few of my (apparently) un-free thoughts.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Snoopy,

I have just last night finished a novel in which the main character attacks and punches a holocaust denier on a TV show before a word of "debate" was spoken. He then went on to deny it happened even tho there were dozens of witnesses and it was caught on several cameras. His point was the idiocy of such denial and of giving a platform to those that try to propose a point of view that has no foundation or validity.

The second coincidence is that in my "Nation State" today's question was whether or not to allow a Nazi/holocaust denial march to take place in my beloved Equuilibrium. I voted that in the interests of free speech that it should be allowed. As you have all intimated it is a contentious and difficult question to call but for me I see denial of anybody's right to say anything is far more dangerous a step to take than to let them say it. Ye Olde slippery slope. The cut off point is when a jury can clearly see that this individual was guilty of incitement to violence.

Radical views tend to appeal to radical minds and the masses generally ignore them. In every walk of life preachers more or less preach to the converted. So let them get on with it. Let them display their lunacy in all its magnificence. Perhaps these guys at Oxford just wanted a "loony fringe" to laugh at, to put some chilli in the stew. I dont know nor care to be frank, but I do value some minority opinions and I would lay down my future to protect them. And that is what the question is really about, freedom to not bleat with the flock.

Tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have just last night finished a novel in which the main character attacks and punches a holocaust denier on a TV show before a word of "debate" was spoken. He then went on to deny it happened even tho there were dozens of witnesses and it was caught on several cameras. His point was the idiocy of such denial and of giving a platform to those that try to propose a point of view that has no foundation or validity.

Hi Tao,

Gosh, agree with me or I'll be violent. I'd like to see his society in action.

The proof of God's existence is all around. To deny it is idiocy, and if you do then I'll hit you (only metaphorically, cos I bet you're a big burly bugger).


s.

[Tao_Equus]

Lol Snoop...

But i think the point was " deny that you ******* ", hard to put a novel in a few words but if you got to know the character you'd see he was ordinarily non-violent. Book was Ian Banks "Dead Air". Banks is a brilliant local novelist and if you like good fiction or science fiction, (which he writes on alternate books under name Ian M Banks), then i thouroughly recommend him. I have been reading him since his debut novel "The Wasp Factory"...

As for hitting me....you want to join my local "fight club"? If so you can tell me what its like

[madeinrussia89]

All this entire issue amounts to is fear and collective guilt. Europe is still afraid of its past and it needs to get over it and get it out in the open.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Book was Ian Banks "Dead Air". Banks is a brilliant local novelist and if you like good fiction or science fiction, (which he writes on alternate books under name Ian M Banks), then i thouroughly recommend him. I have been reading him since his debut novel "The Wasp Factory"...

Aye, in a former life I've read a couple of his; The Wasp Factory and Espedair Street. Too long ago to recall anything of them though! I don't really read fiction any more....although thinking about it, you'd probably think a lot of what I read was "fiction" hohoho

s.

[flowperson]

Snoopy...Haven't you heard ? The boundary between fiction and non-fiction has blurred appreciably the past ten years.

That's why memoirs are selling so well. They are automatically and necessarily a blending of fact and fiction. Vanity, vanity...all is vanity.

Come to think of it, your friend Ballard's short stories are mostly based upon the notion of "fictional memoirs". A very smart and competent writer. Thanks for the suggestion.

flow....