1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Offending people and freedom of speech

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Duplexaxis, May 27, 2013.

  1. Duplexaxis

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    So there's been some Islamic violence in London by a couple of extremists and the Prime minister has said he will 'gag' the hate clerics.

    Do you agree with this?

    Furthermore do you think people should not be allowed to offend others. Clearly it challenges freedom of speech. In the context of sexuality, should anti lgbt speech be banned?

    Personally I disagree with the PM. Clearly the extremism is a pressing issue but conversely we appear to losing 'the war on terror' if we are willing to concede our liberties to continue living in our little bubbles. Just because something offends you it doesn't make you right. If you don't like it then don't listen. Change happens by making something not socially acceptable IE racism.

    Anyone got a different view? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:
     
  2. Hexagon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Earth
    I agree with you. Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important of our rights. It gave us access to all the others. It shouldn't be sacrificed because I don't like what someone is saying.

    That being said, people sometimes forget that freedom of speech includes the freedom to answer. I, as a human, not connected to the state in anyway, will respond to hate speech and extremism.
     
  3. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    The problem is, the Hate Clerics spout their venom about killing the American & British infidel, nut jobs like Michael Adebolajo & Michael Adebowale, take it all in & then go & kill a British Soldier in a vicious & cowardly manner, should Hate Clerics be banned from spouting their venom, HELL YEAH 100% there is a difference between freedom of speech that allows a point of view to be put across & one that leads to an innocent mans death!
     
  4. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    It depends. I believe in the theoretical concept of humanity-surrendering moves. A humanity-surrendering move is when you do something that a reasonable person can only assume means you do not have enough solidarity to be invested in the project of human rights-based society. It's possible to get to that point when you're intolerance and advocate violence against an entire group of people.

    Defending the free speech of people who aren't invested in free society (for example, fascists) is always self-defeating, because if the positions were reversed, the people saying the things that we object to are the same people who would not honor our freedoms if they were in power. There is a real sense, then, in which a slavish adherence to Enlightenment principles, like completely free political speech, becomes problematic: because we have to honor free speech, we end up allowing the hateful to disseminate their views endlessly until, to our horror, they actually become powerful enough to threaten democratic institutions.

    I would have to know exactly what these clerics said, but I suspect it's something along the lines of "behead those who insult Islam." In my opinion, speech like that needs to be considered incitement to violence on religious grounds, and punished with extreme prejudice.

    It's worth recalling some of your own history here. In the 1930s, you had a crackpot Hitler copycat by the name of Sir Oswald Mosley (yes, he got a knighthood). He founded the British Union of Fascists, and he led his black shirts around disgustingly. They attempted to march through Cable Street, which was a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. The outrage of that led to a riot on the part of Jews, socialists, communists, anarchists and others. The police had to come in to protect Mosley's marchers.

    Technically speaking, the riot was "wrong" and disrespectful of free speech. The thing is, though, fascism was a serious problem and growing movement in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. It was threatening democracy in your country. It would have been wrong to respect the law, respect the constitutional principles, and let them march. Instead, blood needed to be spilled there.

    While we're not at the same point in history, or indeed, at the same point with conservative Islamic clerics in Western liberal democracies, we need to exercise constant vigiliance. We cannot let things ever get close to the point where Islamic speech really does threaten democratic principles in the same way that Mosley's BUF represented immediate peril to England's system. My worry is that we will keep saying "oh, Islamism will never take hold here" indefinitely until we find that the enemies are at the gates.

    We need to start fighting, forcefully, long before that.

    In my opinion, that needs to include voluntary actions on the part of citizens to bring extreme economic sanctions down on individuals who associate with the hateful. (I'm talking about getting down to the point of refusing to sell them food, employ them, let land to them, etc).

    In sisterhood,

    Adrian.
     
    #4 Pret Allez, May 27, 2013
    Last edited: May 27, 2013
  5. Hexagon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Earth
    But thats my point, Pret. Freedom of speech isn't about letting fascists speak and corrupt peoples minds without protest. Its about letting them speak, and answering. We let them speak because we can't trust our governments to silence some people without using that power to silence people they don't like.

    To take the example about Islam, neither silencing them or leaving them unchallenged is the right thing to do.
     
  6. Sully

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You'd be exposed to a lot more of this case in the UK than I am in Australia. I take it these hate clerics are spouting rascist slander?

    The problem with rascism (and homophobia) is that it's most often based on false information and incorrect beliefs. I could say a rascist comment, all Asians support whaling. Yes I can say it, but we know for a fact that this isn't true. The problem with this is that this kind of slander is completely false and acts only to tarnish one group.

    I can say, homosexuals are all child molesters and pedophiles? We know this isn't true, but do you think someone should be allowed to spread such slanderous words that only act to perpetuate hate and intolerance within society.

    How do we deal with this? I don't know. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but should it be restricted if what is being spoken is based on lies and acts to perpetuate hate? I think so, but I don't know how.
     
  7. Pret Allez

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,785
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Relax, brother. It's not as if I'm calling for Her Majesty's Government to silence them. I'm just advocating that it be made extremely unsafe in economic and social terms. That's the freedom to associate, which I recommend for use in conjunction with the freedom to answer.
     
  8. MtnFr3sh

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Well, anybody can be offended by anything, if you couldn't offend ANYBODY, you might as well duct tape people's mouths shut...
     
  9. Ridiculous

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I agree.

    What are we possibly pretending we are doing by allowing these people to motivate others to kill?

    It's incredibly feeble-minded to think you can't ban anything because that would obviously lead to everything being potentially outlawed. That's just trying to use the threat of something that hasn't happened as your argument.

    Yes it would be nice if social change could happen on its own and these people would 'naturally' cease to exist. But people are being killed while we wait for that to happen. What's more important: the ability for hatemongers to not have their freedom of speech taken away, or the ability of everyone else to not be killed.
     
  10. Hexagon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Earth
    Yeah, I know you weren't suggesting state sanctioned censorship. I was just expanding. The thing is, the state does try to silence these people.
     
  11. Dublin Boy

    Dublin Boy Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    There's a big difference between freedom of speech & incitement to murder!
     
  12. Salazar

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    I think you have to approach the situation pragmatically. You have to chose whether Abu Hamza and his chums are more important to you than you and your family are. It's all well and good to stand here congratulating yourself on how well you are doing in protecting everyone's freedoms, but you have to draw the line and accept that Abu Hamza, Anjem Choudary and all those other radical bastards want to curb your freedoms, and are indeed standing around thanking you for helping them along their way. I believe exactly the same about other terrorist groups, such as the IRA, and think it's a mockery of justice that Martin McGuinness, for example, is allowed the oxygen of public airing.

    You have to ask yourself: is freedom of speech absolute, or would you rather be dead, because that, unfortunately, is the choice we have to make.

    I do not, however, believe that insulting someone should be a legal offence.

    ---------- Post added 27th May 2013 at 03:38 PM ----------

    I also think that Islam itself has a lot of work to do. It's very nice that they condemn terrorism, but what do the communities actually do to combat radicalisation. Very little, as discussed on BBC News last week.
     
  13. arturoenrico

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    New York
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    It depends on the venue. I don't think teachers, for instance should be allowed to express hateful views of others. I don't think it's right for politicians to engage in hate speech in a place such as congress. I think people should be allowed to have their sicko, psycho, right wing, hate filled blogs, newspapers, etc. It shouldnt happen in a publicallly owned place. It is a slippery slope. And, it think it should be unlawful to advocate for people to be harmed or killed for their beliefs, sexuality, religion, race, etc. that is not free speech.
     
  14. Spurned

    Spurned Guest

    *Shrinks a little* There's a lot of big words in this conversation, so I'm gonna post what I assumed from the title. >.> (It's 3am and I'm drowsy, I have defences!)

    I do think everyone is entitled to speak freely but depending on who they are speaking to and where they are. For example, my RE teacher told us in front of our class he thinks "you're stupid if you smoke" knowing full well I smoke (and a few others in the class) and everyone just looked at me. It downright offended me and he knew it would. Yeah, we might be learning about ethics but there are some certain things you shouldn't say in front of certain people. I'm just bloody glad he didn't go blathering on about why smoking's bad which I've heard at least twice each school year for five years. (Also, yes, I listened, I know all the effects of smoking. >.<)

    It's not a usual topic you discuss with 15-16 year olds who are coming to grips with themselves and experimenting pretty much everything, at least give us the chance to voice our opinions back (which he didn't.) Then there's the homophobic views in front of clear LGBTetc people and it's just, bleh. Silly. Discuss it with people who are interested and who aren't against your opinions.

    Sorry if this has nothing to do with the topic, but my opinion had to be heard as well, and I feel this is an open-minded forum. *Shrinks back into corner*
     
  15. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    There's a difference between free speech and hate speech. All I am going to say about it.
     
  16. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Quite frankly, when someone's ideal would be for only their opinion to be legal, but they call people out on stopping their right to freedom of expression, then that is too hypocritical and over the line to be allowed. These people would reverse things if they had the opportunity, and anyone who threatens democracy, yet cowers behind its protections when they want to, does not deserve the right to free speech (which, in this case, is demanding the execution of those who don't agree with them and their views).
     
  17. SilverGirl

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brasil
    ohh man i was gonna say the same thing, im sorry but its hard to read everything, its 5:46 AM here, damnnnn, i really should go to bed lol
     
  18. Alexander69

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    West Vancouver Canada
    Didn't someone get beheaded there? Like WTF is wrong with the world it makes me want to never leave home
     
  19. MichaelB

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    Freedom of speech doesn't go above violating laws though.

    There are laws against inciting violence, and that's exactly what these hate clerics are doing. They're inciting people to attack others based on religion, so yes I do agree with the PM that they should be stopped.

    There's a difference between saying that Muslims are oppressed, and saying that Muslims are oppressed so you should kill innocent people. And there's a counter side to it. There's a difference in saying that Muslims are terrorists (which is bullshit and bigoted) and saying Muslims are terrorists so you should vandalise mosques.
     
  20. FemCasanova

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oslo
    In my opinion, when the free speech can cost lives, then it crosses the border between a privilege and a crime. Expressing your opinion does not always have a harmful effect, but hate speech does. I have a right to drive a car, but not ram it into an innocent civilian. Words can have equal power to a gun or a car, and should hence be treated similarly. Saying that gay marriage can affect society negatively is one thing, saying that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be fought back is something entirely different, and can lead to gay teenagers committing suicide as well as random violence against LGBT people. Hate speech should not be excused under the free speech privilege, because it has ramifications outside of what any other standard opinion, no matter how disagreeable, has.

    Just my 2 cents.