[Closed] its official freedom of speech is dead, 1984 came a bit late....

The freedom to say anything a person wants.

The freedom to live without fear of hatred and abuse.

It has to be a balance between the two objectives. There are laws that free man, and there are laws that imprison man, IMO punishing those that rage with vile hatred is a law that creates freedom.

This is just a racist idiot who got a stiff sentence.

and what they said above

Freedome of speech is aboput excercising olitical frredom of expression many things are censored and curtail this right but it is a balance.

Being a racist abusive muppet is not really a human right that i feel the need to get overly concerned about protecting. I would rather protect the right to live your life without being unduly harrassed.

I believe woman should have the rite to an abortion even though it enrages, offends and causes vile hatred in those who believe otherwise.
I also believe that those who "believe otherwise" have a rite to shout vile ,hateful,abusive things outside the clinics to express their freedom of speech .Freedom of speech isnt perfect just better than the alt imo.

Freedom of speech applies just as much to the people who you disaggree with or who's views you find offensive.

Freedom of speech applies just as much to the people who you disaggree with or who's views you find offensive.

you're missing the point

I don't think so, freedom of speech applies to all or it applies to none.

I dont agree with what this guy said or how he thinks , but honestly believe he has a rite to both!

He does have a right to both those things. What he doesn't have a right to do is publish* racist, abusive BS without expecting some sort of comeback from a society that doesn't tolerate those things.

*I think Twitter is basically seen as publishing in this context by the law, but IANAL.

I also believe that those who "believe otherwise" have a rite to shout vile ,hateful,abusive things outside the clinics to express their freedom of speech

So the abuse and hatred creates fear and effectively removes the freedom to make the choice you support.

"I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" - Voltaire, I think.

Ah right then so child sex offenders and their rights then what is your view on that - they can say what they want and promote whatever they want?

How about if someoen says all gays are EVIL sinners and we should beat them up on the streets and kill them to protect huimanity

How about someone gives advice on date rape and how to get away with it and explains why all women want it

Advice on how to scam folk on stw and find out where they live to steal their bikes

Freedom of speech is bandied about as if it covers your right to say anything at all however sometimes you need to curtail it to protect others rights. Most people can see this and agree that the weighing up of this can be complictaed and needs appropriate checks and balances.

You are taking a very simplistic right or wrong approach to a complicated disscussion of checks and balances.

Folks I think I have found TJ's alias and I claim my £5 😉

We dont have to read what we dont agree with.I dont agree with most of what is written in the daily mail so i dont read it (mother inlaw gets it so i know whats inside !! It enrages me and causes me to hate it !!) However i dont think it should be banned or punished for causing my blood to boil with its muppetry !!

So 'what is acceptable' is now defined by the people who are most offended by what is said?

MSP freedom like many things in life can cause conflict but in my humble opinion is better than the alt.

So 'what is acceptable' is now defined by the people who are most offended by what is said?

should paedos set the ruiles on what is acceptable to say about paedos and kids ina sexual context then? I mean they are not offened by it so they set the rules ..is this your argument now?

You seem to prefer
So 'what is acceptable' is now defined by the people who are [s]most[/s] NOT offended by what is said?

Most of us would try and get a balance between the two positions.

junkyard: the pope said pretty much that about gay people and although i dont agree with it in the slightest he is entitled to that opinion .And dont put yourself down your nothing like TJ (no offence TJ ) 😉

yes junkyard the only people who can be balanced and objective about things are those who are not offended and who leave their personal opinion to the side and keep their emotions in check !

you missed a wink of that post surely

What the pope said is very different to a women being abused when going to a clinic for advise, or an interracial couple being abused in their communities for their relationship.

Can you really not see how this abuse damages the ability to live freely far more than losing the right to be abusive.

Key point of law (I think) is that freedom of speech does not apply if you're inciting someone to commit a crime:

How about someone gives advice on date rape and how to get away with it and explains why all women want it

So this would be an example of that, whereas someone saying 'I think women are asking for it when they dress provocatively' is a vile opinion that is just that, an opinion.

Similarly, a pedophile who expresses how they feel causes moral outrage but isn't committing a crime.

The sense of 'moral outrage' is the price of freedom of speech but it's also the mechanism that society uses to establish what is or isn't acceptable. Actual laws are codifications of social laws and the process of moral outrage is key to codification. If the moral outrage is strong enough (as it is with racial hatred) then the social law will pass into actual law.

If the moral outrage with this process is then strong enough, that law will likely be repealed.

The key to our system is that it is far from perfect, but it is also self correcting (to a greater degree).

I'm uncomfortable with someone being locked up for expressing a vile opinion if that expression didn't 'break the peace' or incite someone else to commit a crime, but I don't think that this discomfort is anything close to moral outrage. Until it is I won't be losing any sleep over it.

I wouldn't worry if I was you. Freedom of speech is obviously alive and well as people like these idiots:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

...can go around saying whatever they want and not get arrested.

The written word is very different from physical or verbal abuse .There are plenty of laws in place to deal with both.But punishing someone for writing something you dont agree with seems to me to be wrong.Just dont read it !
junkyard sorry for the missing wink !!

Key point of law (I think) is that freedom of speech does not apply if you're inciting someone to commit a crime:

You are right but that is still a curtailin gof your freedome of expression
IMHO almost everyone agrees with censorship /curtailing freedom of speech [ look at "islamic hate preachers" as the right wing press like to label them] if you use an extreme enough example [ a paedo, rape whatever] we just discuss where to draw the line.

It is a checks and balances thing and i have not read the tweets so do not know what my view ois on this particular case but I do not oppose the principle

Free speech has limits in a society and this is need to protect the rights of others.

People should be able to life thier life free from abuse EVERYONE * black people , gays and those who go for abortions.

* the irony is you curtasil the rights of the abusive person to achieve this

As I said checks and balances

But punishing someone for writing something you dont agree with seems to me to be wrong.Just dont read it !

How do i know my reaction to a tweet prior to reading it?
It works with teh daily mail I can easily avoid that but how can i avoid a post/tweet that would offend me?

It all deopends i think folk can say what they like but sometimes all they want to do is be offensive or trll - this i snot realya freedom of speech issue for me

There are examples of people writing distatesteful things on memorial pages for people who have died - I dont see how i can avoid reading this [ or for that matter the parents and those who love the person]

TBH I dont see why anyone would do this either or why we would think iti as a freedom of speech issue

It all deopends i think folk can say what they like but sometimes all they want to do is be offensive or trll - this i snot realya freedom of speech issue for me

There are examples of people writing distatesteful things on memorial pages for people who have died - I dont see how i can avoid reading this [ or for that matter the parents and those who love the person]

TBH I dont see why anyone would do this either or why we would think iti as a freedom of speech issue

That's quite clearly a freedom of speech issue, there's no clear definition of offense - many religious groups were offended by Dawkins' bus campaign ("THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD"), but here (and quite rightly to my mind) the offense was given less importance than the freedom to say it.

This guy's obviously a tool, but unless there was any incitement to crime I think he should be allowed to say (tweet, publish, whatever) his stupid opinions.

I don't think so, freedom of speech applies to all or it applies to none.

If someone goes around saying something offensive for the sake of being offensive they shouldn't be too surprised when people take offence..

I for example am offended by people who see situations with purely black and white.. right or wrong.. yes or no.. all or nothing.. everyone or nobody solutions

life's not like that

if such liberal policies are to work then they need to be accompanied by equally liberal use of discretion

This puts it quite well I think. The people jumping to quote Voltaire haven't really thought it through I don't think- soundbites don't really translate to the real world so easily. I doubt Voltaire would have fought to the death to defend people's right to post abusive comments on memorial pages.

£270 fine plus £300 compensation to the victim for the racial abuse (guilty plea so presumably a discount).

Son's not guilty plea to assault accepted.

This is a fairly normal attitude amongst wendy ball supporters, in regards to women, other ethnic groups, any reason they get really to be biast.

That said the banking sector has collpased the global economy and cost the lives of countless children in the process, the banks in the UK have been involved in millions of individual crimes and will never be charged for any of them.

The judicial system is a pantomime, a show for all those who need something to believe in, however it does not recognise truth or justice only the perpetuation of power through control.

The only reason this went to court is because it was done online where a lot of people witnesses it, it was a perfect demonstration of the attitude of a portion of the british people, so an example had to be made.

Was it right or wrong, that's not for the people of this country to decide, it's for those that rule this country to decide, no matter how incompetent, short sighted or delusional they are, their word is law!

How are we on page 3 after only 72 posts?

So if I'm filmed calling Blacks etc etc to leave etc I deserve jail right?

Yes.

This guy is the same. Sorry if you want to make racial comments, don't do it in the public domain. His comments were designed to cause hurt and distress.

Back pedalling doesn't save his ass. Otherwise we'd all plead 'I was drunk sir' to avoid trouble bollocks.

Tough shit idiot. Maybe learn to keep your racist views to yourself. What next? He blames it on cocaine and alcohol? 😆

I just wish we had the same rules for private radio channel banging out prayer info about unbelievers also in the UK (sinister with a slightly echo-effect booming voice)....

I don't think so, freedom of speech applies to all or it applies to none.

Of course not. Plenty of people are jailed for inciting hate and violence, and quite right too - it makes for a much better and freer society. Personally I think the law should be extended to making inciting war against another country illegal.

"I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" - Voltaire, I think.

You think wrong - Voltaire never said that. And why would he have ? There wasn't a whole lot of freedom of expression in 18th century France, plus I don't think Voltaire had a lot of time for democracy, apparently according to him [i]"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination".[/i]

I suggest that you look to Rosa Luxemburg to provide a quote which says what you appear to be trying to say :

[i]"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."[/i]

Or

[i]" Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."[/i]

This is a fairly normal attitude amongst wendy ball supporters, in regards to women, other ethnic groups, any reason they get really to be biast.

Yes, all us 'wendyball' supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic morons.

straight from the horses mouth.. case closed.. last one to the pub is a rotten egg

Does anyone know what they are talking about on this from a legal point of view?

He pleaded guilty to "inciting racial hatred" according to the BBC, now I have seen the text of the tweets. Without doubt they are vile and racist, but who are they inciting in the conventional sense of the word or is this just a case of loose language by the reporter.

No intent to argue any point, just want to understand what the law is.

mefty - probably Section 18 or 19 of this [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents ]Public Order Act 1986[/url]

It is all a bit nebulous - what type of racist comment stirs up racial hatred - does it depend upon how likely you are to influence other people's views?

That's [ trolling the memorial sites to dead people] quite clearly a freedom of speech issue, there's no clear definition of offense - many religious groups were offended by Dawkins' bus campaign

SO we have the freedom of sppech to turn up athe funerals of peole we have not met and hurl abuse as they lower the coffin?
Perhaps we should be allowed to turn up at the weddings of strangers and call the bride a slag ?
In what sense is this freedom of speech?I dont see it it is freesom to be abusive whic is not the same thing at all.

No one has the right to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive and that si what is happening here.
yes sometimes making a legitimate point[dawkins*] offends some people if there is a point then it needs to be balanced. The tweets and the comments have no point other than to cause offence. I am not sure why anyone would want to defend this or think it is some sort if noble freedom of expression issue we all need to support.

* their view of what happens to non believer and their view of us is pretty offensive as well but they think they can call us all sinners destined to hell and call gays but we cannot comment back or we are intolerant...that is just double standards IMHO.

ohnohesback - Member
So 'what is acceptable' is now defined by the people who are most offended by what is said?

Dear God are there really articulate people in this world who perceive what that hateful git did was exercising freedom of speech? If you do try remembering that when I walk up to your wife/husband, daughter/son or girlfriend/boyfriend and launch into a tirade of foul mouthed abuse, asking them such delightful things as whether they'd like to see my genitals and whether I can touch them inappropriately etc etc. My right to freedom of speech?? Of course not.

Do not mistake the right to free speech with some fanciful idea that your forebears fought a war to keep your right to foully abuse others. They didn't, and there is no such right and never has been.

Freedom of speech??....next thing you'll be telling me is that you have a black mate and your kids go to school with one so obviously you aren't a racist. Wake up and take a look at yourself will yer?