Total Freedom of Speech?

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Threatening someone like that is breaking the law, not expressing a belief. No matter how you phrase it. That is the point in the difference between the view point and the criminal act. Freedom of speech is about stating opinions without the government jailing you or punishment of some kind. Not about letting people threaten violence for fun.
Click to expand...


This is exactly my point m8, BB asked if ppl should have complete and utter freedom of speech, and my reply was that I agree with the laws which are currently in place which restrict your freedom of speech to expressing opinion and not threatening ppl.

The US have killed many more people throughout the world with their "interesting" foreign policy.
Click to expand...


I realize that, and I would no more support an American or English man threatening someone than a person of ethnic background.

Because you do not agree with someone is not a reason to have them silenced. I can't stress how fundamentally dangerous a path that is.
Click to expand...


Again, this statement supports my point of view. I said you have the right to express any opinion you wish, this obviously involve opinions which differ from other peoples and that’s fine. Opinions do not cause other people emotional trauma, threats and insults so, whether said outright or just implied.

As to someone insulting my mother.. as pointed out already, there's a difference between treatening an individual, or inciting criminal acts and expressing a political view which is unpopular.
Click to expand...


As pointed out by me, yes. Freedom of speech is restricted by law at the point when what you are saying inflicts emotional trauma on another human. I realize there is a difference and that is exactly what I was saying – that is the line where freedom should be restricted.

BNP being an obvious example? They preach hatred. Should they be stopped from doing so?
Click to expand...

No, hatred is an opinion and they have the right to dislike whoever they want, however they do not have the right to threaten or insult the people they hate. The pro-osma supporters is a difficult one, they have the right to think what he is doing is right, however supporting the murder of thousands of innocent people is not right.

Freedom of speech = saying anything you like, that means absolutely anything
My point of view = You have the freedom to express any opinion you want but not threaten or insult others.
Opinions, yes, 100% freedom. Threats, insults, no as they breach the victims human rights.
 
Last edited:
No, hatred is an opinion and they have the right to dislike whoever they want, however they do not have the right to threaten or insult the people they hate

So should Hunt Saboteurs be arrested when they give Fox Hunters all kindsa shit calling therm everything under the sun?
 
I disagree with the way hunt saboteurs go about their protests yes, calling ppl names and throwing things at the hunters etc is not productive and makes them look bad.

Protests like that should be conducted round a table so everyone has the opportunity to express and justify their opinion.
 
Originally posted by Spirit
Freedom of speech = saying anything you like, that means absolutely anything
My point of view = You have the freedom to express any opinion you want but not threaten or insult others.
Opinions, yes, 100% freedom. Threats, insults, no as they breach the victims human rights.
Click to expand...
Thats where I disagree with you Spirit. I think freedom of speech is not saying anything you like, its the freedom to have and express an opinion without fear of the government locking you up for it.

Quoting (as always) from declaration of human rights

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So you have the right to hold (what I would consider) an obnoxious opionion that "Jews should go home", or adultery is a serious crime up there with murder, or non-caucasian peoples are thick. But holding and expressing that opinion are very very different from threats of physical violence for example.
 
Originally posted by Spirit
Freedom of speech = saying anything you like, that means absolutely anything
My point of view = You have the freedom to express any opinion you want but not threaten or insult others.
Opinions, yes, 100% freedom. Threats, insults, no as they breach the victims human rights. [/B]
Click to expand...

We seem to agree on the fundamentals, but there's a difference in terminology here.

"freedom of speech" has never to my knowledge meant freedom to say whatever you want. There has always been the case law of things like shouting "fire" in a packed theatre. It's the freedom to express an opinion, in public, to your peers, without legal repercussions.

Be careful of bundling "insults" in with "threats".

if I say "You God botherers make me sick. Your God is a fantasty, and you are deluding yourself" I am sure 90% of hardcore bone-rattlers will be insulted.

And tought tits to them. I am free to express that opinion, in public if I wish. I can (and have) heckled street preachers, and believe I am fully within my rights to do so.

Just as the preacher has the right to tell passers by his wild eyed fantasises about hell and damnation, I have every right to tell passers by that he's a mong with a nasty smell, and he needs toeat some bran.

If I made a *single* threat to the guy however, the line has been crossed, and it's a quick fall down the stairs and some anal investigation by Strathclyde Police for me...
 
I think all the talk about insults an opinions is best summed up by a quote I once saw, from (I think) a Robert Heinlein novel.


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"

:D


Just in case anyone was under any doubt, the only place where freedom of speech actually exists in the UK is at "Speakers Corner" in Hyde Park (I think its Hyde Park), London. By virtue of an old Royal Proclamation I think it was.

Everywhere else in the UK, the curse of "political correctness" has destroyed the healthy right of the lieges to criticise and oppose abuses of position and power by those in elected or unelected office.

c.f. Commissioner for Racial Equality gets beered up and physically and verbally assaults a policeman. He gets a poxy £500 fine, and a £115,000 payoff at taxpayer's expense from his job. (And I bet he's since been shunted into another plum post).

And yet no-one dares criticise simply because he is a member of a supposed "minority". That is the worst kind of double standards. Everyone should be equal before the law. No exceptions or exemptions.

Imagine what would have happened if a drunken policeman or citizen had assaulted this bloke?
 
So it's PC to stop a debate about freedom of speech??? Or any of the other debates for that matter... It just gets better in this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back