Absolute Freedom of Speech

[bigbr0ther]

Do you support absolute freedom of speech?

[I know most people will probably not pick the 3rd option but I put it in there just in case. You never know!]

[Tom]

Yes, I'm all for absolute freedom of speech. If someone doesn't like gay people, doesn't like a particular race for whatever reason etc they should be allowed to voice their opinions, just as long as theres a perfectly valid reason. I suppose that kind of undermines freedom of speech to an extent but that would be more towards no limits than within limits (ie political correctness).

[Fom]

There needs to be limits, if we had complete freedom of speech then there would be alot of wrong doing going on. It would end up like southern america, with their "God hates fags" posters everywhere. People would lose all sense of respect, and that is something I am proud of the UK for. There is a difference from everyone being able to voice their opinion then having "Freedom of speech". Because in retrospect we just cant trust this country to behave with so much freedom.

[sexy_leigh]

yeah but to some extent

[Shaun]

I'm kinda torn between the first two options.

I mean people should be able to be homophobic/racist for whatever reason they deem acceptable...of course I completely disagree with homophobia/racism but it would be extremely hypocritical for someone to discriminate against the discriminatory.

[Scarlett.]

I think its ok to a certain extent, all the -ism's should remain to be not allowed, but everything else should be allowed

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Chewy
I think its ok to a certain extent, all the -ism's should remain to be not allowed, but everything else should be allowed

Hm, does homophobia count as an ism?

[Sticks]

I think the famous line

"Freedom of speech does not entitle one to yell fire in a crowded theatre"

sums it up

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sticks
I think the famous line

"Freedom of speech does not entitle one to yell fire in a crowded theatre"

sums it up

Sorry but that is a rubbish analogy and you know it....Freedom of speech is to express ones beliefs or emotions. Shouting fire is not a statement of expression or emotion it is an alarm. Your analogy falls flat on it's face.

If you limit freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech......Simple as that. Those that speak and cross the line in the eyes of some should only encounter the possible actions of libel or slander or incitement to harm which is against the law anyway.......But people are still free to do as such but at their peril.....

As harsh and unreasonable as it may seem only the top answer would give freedom of speech. The middle answer is a contradiction. Limit free speech then free speech is none existant....

[Spike]

There needs to be limits.
If there were either no limits to it or no freedom of speech at all then it would be a horrible place to be.

[Scarlett.]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Originally posted by Chewy
I think its ok to a certain extent, all the -ism's should remain to be not allowed, but everything else should be allowed

Hm, does homophobia count as an ism? Yep, thats what I mean by -ism's lol

[AngRemembered]

Originally posted by bananarama
Originally posted by Sticks
I think the famous line

"Freedom of speech does not entitle one to yell fire in a crowded theatre"

sums it up

Sorry but that is a rubbish analogy and you know it....Freedom of speech is to express ones beliefs or emotions. Shouting fire is not a statement of expression or emotion it is an alarm. Your analogy falls flat on it's face.

If you limit freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech......Simple as that. Those that speak and cross the line in the eyes of some should only encounter the possible actions of libel or slander or incitement to harm which is against the law anyway.......But people are still free to do as such but at their peril.....

As harsh and unreasonable as it may seem only the top answer would give freedom of speech. The middle answer is a contradiction. Limit free speech then free speech is none existant....

Absolutely, and I agree with your comments on the analogy that original quote must have been one of Mario's :joker:

Freedom of speech should embrace ALL oppinions and views with the limit being set at enticing/encouraging people to killing or violence, and it does seem in the UK at times those freedoms are only allowed to certain minority groups.

[GiRTh]

If you want freedom of speech then naturally freedom of expression will follow. many pornographers hide behind the first amendment and their right freedom of expression as a way to justify their industry.

So Freedom of speech is a great concept in theory but in practise their must be some kind of guidelines.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Angiebabe
Absolutely, and I agree with your comments on the analogy that original quote must have been one of Mario's :joker:


Actually the quote has been around long before Big Brother

STOP PRESS

The quote has been around since 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)




"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a frequent paraphrasing of a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The quote is used to express the limits on free speech under the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[AngRemembered]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by Angiebabe
Absolutely, and I agree with your comments on the analogy that original quote must have been one of Mario's :joker:


Actually the quote has been around long before Big Brother

STOP PRESS

The quote has been around since 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)




"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a frequent paraphrasing of a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The quote is used to express the limits on free speech under the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


LMAO, you really take the biscuit, I'm aware its an old quote you fool, my reference to Mario was.oh why bother ..that will sail well over your head too..

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by bananarama
If you limit freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech......Simple as that. The middle answer is a contradiction. Limit free speech then free speech is none existant....

I guess you're right. I should have worded it differently, perhaps as "No. People should be allowed to say certain things, but there need to be limits." Unfortunately polls cannot be edited.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Originally posted by bananarama
If you limit freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech......Simple as that. The middle answer is a contradiction. Limit free speech then free speech is none existant....

I guess you're right. I should have worded it differently, perhaps as "No. People should be allowed to say certain things, but there need to be limits." Unfortunately polls cannot be edited.

The poll wording is fine. It's me I have some weird logic sometimes......There is no easy answer to the concept of free speech.

My logic is to believe in genuine free speech you have to take the bad with the good and that means anyone at any time could be offended......That is or would be the price to pay for free speech which means really it aint free as there is a price to pay...

Realty is we don't have genuine free speech and probably never will......But it's a darn sight better than many countries...

[Tom]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Originally posted by bananarama
If you limit freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech......Simple as that. The middle answer is a contradiction. Limit free speech then free speech is none existant....

I guess you're right. I should have worded it differently, perhaps as "No. People should be allowed to say certain things, but there need to be limits." Unfortunately polls cannot be edited.

There should have been a completely different option really, something like "yes, freedom of speech should be allowed but within certain guidelines". The wording of the other two is fine and two perfectly valid scenarios some people clearly want, but I think there might be a small handful of voters (like myself) torn between the first two options.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Tom
There should have been a completely different option really, something like "yes, freedom of speech should be allowed but within certain guidelines". The wording of the other two is fine and two perfectly valid scenarios some people clearly want, but I think there might be a small handful of voters (like myself) torn between the first two options.

That's just option 2 except worded differently....

[Tom]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Originally posted by Tom
There should have been a completely different option really, something like "yes, freedom of speech should be allowed but within certain guidelines". The wording of the other two is fine and two perfectly valid scenarios some people clearly want, but I think there might be a small handful of voters (like myself) torn between the first two options.

That's just option 2 except worded differently....

The way I interpreted number 2 was the current system which we have which is not the one I think should be in place.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Tom
The way I interpreted number 2 was the current system which we have which is not the one I think should be in place.

The poll is completely unrelated to the way things are. If you think there should be limits, but different limits than the ones currently in place, option 2 is still right because you still support limits.

[Always_RiGHt]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, I'm all for absolute freedom of speech. If someone doesn't like gay people, doesn't like a particular race for whatever reason etc they should be allowed to voice their opinions, just as long as theres a perfectly valid reason. I suppose that kind of undermines freedom of speech to an extent but that would be more towards no limits than within limits (ie political correctness).

I agree with you tom, there would be a better place if everyone could say exactly what they think and feel without being shot down by soime bleedin busybody who dont like what you say in a public place/media

[Always_RiGHt]

Originally posted by bananarama

But it's a darn sight better than many countries...

Lets pick an Arab country..any? :laugh:

[ange7]

yeah ... limits are needed and do exist... so what's the problem?
ie you can't incite violence and hate crimes ( even in forums!! hehe ... you know who I'm talking about )
nor can you defame someone... ...
etc

.... there are lots of laws that you could break just by opening your mouth. Basically you can say whatever you like unless it steps on the rights of others.... and "the rights of others" includes not being discriminated against... not have violence acted on you nor have someone incite a mob to do the same etc.
Describing this as a "limit on freedom" makes some idiots scream "limits? ... there should be NO limits on freedom"... but that would be nuts.

[Indierock&roll]

hmm yeah there does need to be limits because i dont see any exuce to why people should hate a different race.. hate the person not where they come from.

[Ruth]

People who bang on about freedom of speech in this country usually mean that they want freedom to be as bigoted and ignorant as they want, without anybody being able to have a go at them about it. They should be ashamed of themselves. When you consider how much freedom of speech we have in this country compared to some.

I mean, I read somebody moaning about their violation of freedom of speech on another thread, because people suggested calling someone a **** was offensive. This person wanted to be able to call someone a **** if necessary. Well, guess what? Calling someone that is offensive, and with freedom of speech, comes responsibility - you should use your freedom wisely and fairly. Try moaning about that to my friend (for example) who was brought up in South Africa under the Apartheid system and was jailed for speaking up against the government. Try telling that to the people in Zimbabwe whose lives were threatened if they did not vote for Robert Mugabe.

And people have the nerve to moan because they feel they are not allowed to be as racist or as homophobic as they like. It makes me sick.:sad:

[brandstifter]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Do you support absolute freedom of speech?

[I know most people will probably not pick the 3rd option but I put it in there just in case. You never know!]

Absolute freedom of speech is a stretch in reality.

Examples of where freedom of speech is inappropriate:

Incitement to violence
Threats
Race hate
Name-calling
Breach of the Official Secrets Act
Libel
Slander
Promotion of terrorism

As soon as you say anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want wherever and whenever they want, you're in trouble. Acid test: should someone have the right to shout personal abuse at you in the street? How would you react? Isn't that them just exercising their right to free speech? If not, how does that differ from some journalist doing the same in a publication?

:shrug: