[Benjamin]

I hear many people go on about freedom of speech, but sometimes it feels and seems to be this statement only holds true if your freedom of speech happens to agree with the majority. If you fall into the minority then sometimes freedom of speech is not accepted and often leaves the person and their opinions castigated.

[lostalex]

You can't claim freedom of speech when it disturbs other people's freedom of peace. You have the freedom to say whatever you like, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to FORCE your speech on other people.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to be heard.

Your freedom ends when it encroaches on another person's freedoms. You cannot call another person 20 times in a day, and claim it's "freedom of speech". That's harassment. You have the right to say and think what you like, but you don't have the right to force other people to listen to it.

That's my understanding of freedom of speech.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ben

I hear many people go on about freedom of speech, but sometimes it feels and seems to be this statement only holds true if your freedom of speech happens to agree with the majority. If you fall into the minority then sometimes freedom of speech is not accepted and often leaves the person and their opinions castigated.

You have no idea how true that is... Or maybe you do

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Ben

I hear many people go on about freedom of speech, but sometimes it feels and seems to be this statement only holds true if your freedom of speech happens to agree with the majority. If you fall into the minority then sometimes freedom of speech is not accepted and often leaves the person and their opinions castigated.

Yes. Free speech within reason should be authorised but I never understand those who defend bigots in the name of it. The line is crossed when it infringes on someone else's rights not to be offended without due cause. I remember on here a year ago when some racist moron made vile digs towards Fabrice following his heart attack and people on here were saying it was all right because he should be allowed to say what he likes.

I did start a very similar threads to this a while back but it seems to have disappeared.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

You can't claim freedom of speech when it disturbs other people's freedom of peace. You have the freedom to say whatever you like, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to FORCE your speech on other people.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to be heard.

Your freedom ends when it encroaches on another person's freedoms. You cannot call another person 20 times in a day, and claim it's "freedom of speech". That's harassment. You have the right to say and think what you like, but you don't have the right to force other people to listen to it.

That's my understanding of freedom of speech.

Well I'm glad you understand that cos I don't...

[Mystic Mock]

No I don't think it exists, but I do believe some countries are more looser than others.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You have no idea how true that is... Or maybe you do

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You have no idea how true that is... Or maybe you do

Give me some credit, I know how true it is. I also know how easy it can be to fall into a majority viewpoint without even realising it, as I'm sure most of us have all done too at one point.

[Kizzy]

Totally

[Nedusa]

We all have free speech as long as that free speech falls within the publicly accepted framework of unbiased, non racist, non sexist, non religious, etc...

Also the "free speech" has to be relatively truthful, not spoken for monetary gain, not spoken to defame or slander another person, not spoken to harm, misdirect or misinform other person or persons.

The free speech has to fit in with the majority viewpoint of the public within the current zeitgeist .

So on further reflection considering all of the above ,I would reluctantly have to accept that we as individuals do NOT have free speech in the truest sense of the word. We are just given the impression we have , but in reality we do not...!!!

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Ben

I hear many people go on about freedom of speech, but sometimes it feels and seems to be this statement only holds true if your freedom of speech happens to agree with the majority. If you fall into the minority then sometimes freedom of speech is not accepted and often leaves the person and their opinions castigated.

tell me about it!

[lostalex]

it sounds like Ben and Kizzy are talking about something more specific.... and i'm clueless

Freedom of speech does not equal consequence-free speech.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

tell me about it!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

We all have free speech as long as that free speech falls within the publicly accepted framework of unbiased, non racist, non sexist, non religious, etc...

Also the "free speech" has to be relatively truthful, not spoken for monetary gain, not spoken to defame or slander another person, not spoken to harm, misdirect or misinform other person or persons.

The free speech has to fit in with the majority viewpoint of the public within the current zeitgeist .

So on further reflection considering all of the above ,I would reluctantly have to accept that we as individuals do NOT have free speech in the truest sense of the word. We are just given the impression we have , but in reality we do not...!!!

I agree with this

[Kazanne]

No we don't,even on here some are censored.

[Vicky.]

Nah. Freedom of speech does kinda exist, as no-one can actually stop others saying what they wish. However there needs to be, and is, a line.

For example

Man A is perfectly free to express his bigotted views towards gays if he wishes
But he should be prepared to suffer the consequences of his words.

I know that means it doesnt exist. But I define freedom of speech differently to others I think

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nah. Freedom of speech does kinda exist, as no-one can actually stop others saying what they wish. However there needs to be, and is, a line.

For example

Man A is perfectly free to express his bigotted views towards gays if he wishes
But he should be prepared to suffer the consequences of his words.

I know that means it doesnt exist. But I define freedom of speech differently to others I think

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Freedom of speech does not equal consequence-free speech.

That do ya?

[Vicky.]

Yes, that was a much simpler way of saying it

[Cherie]

In my view, the only way you can have totally free speech would be between two people holding a private conversation, that should work in theory anyway.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yes, that was a much simpler way of saying it

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

it sounds like Ben and Kizzy are talking about something more specific.... and i'm clueless

Sounds like you are to me too as we weren't.