FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Do you believe in free speech?

Do you believe in free speech?

By *hagTonight OP Man over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

I was watching a video about it where rowan atkinson talked about free speech, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU

He started of by saying how the most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself freely which I agree with, among other examples he talked about.

I also think that it is important to have it, because it allows the free exchange of ideas, helps others see different perspectives, causes facts to be revealed (as well as exposes lies) and sends a clear message on where the speaker stands.

What do you think of the importance of free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ruceyyMan over a year ago

London

We all do dont we? As long as it's not phobic.

Especially as long as it doesn't make anyone here feel like they aren't being included even on an open forum on light hearted topics though!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uckMan over a year ago

Scunthorpe DN15

if one has something to say and says it so it can be heard then those hearing have a reason and right to reply.

if one wants their voice to be heard they should except that anyone who hears might respond.

if one puts one head above the parapet expect flack.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I also think that it is important to have it, because it allows the free exchange of ideas, helps others see different perspectives, causes facts to be revealed (as well as exposes lies) and sends a clear message on where the speaker stands."

That's a lovely idea.

But you know - people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oofy321Man over a year ago

moon base zero

"We all do dont we? As long as it's not phobic.

Especially as long as it doesn't make anyone here feel like they aren't being included even on an open forum on light hearted topics though!"

Phobic people are entitled to free speech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

That's a lovely idea.

But you know - people."

I was just thinking the same thing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Freedom of speech is cool and that but like if someone is racist I hope that they don’t cry if them expressing those racist views have consequences.

Some people want to be free to offend others without consequence and that’s not it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

I can’t think of anything I am not allowed to say that I want to say

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *affeine DuskMan over a year ago

Caerphilly

Can't believe we're finally getting a Rowan Atkinson 175+ thread, well done Rowan

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah

But I also believe in consequences for ‘free speech’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

The internet has given people some odd ideas about free speech.

There isn't free speech on FAB, for good reason too.

The British concept of free speech is a bit nebulous. You think you have it until you haven't.

One to ponder, should free speech enable to right to call for the abolition of free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Believing in free speech means that you need to be prepared to hear things you don't want to and be challenged on what you have said. If you want free speech you must be prepared for it to apply to everyone not just yourself. Using your right to free speech to attempt to shut down others is misunderstanding the concept...in my opinion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes but too many people use free speech as an excuse to spout hateful views. The world is a slippery slope if you take it away but there's certain things no society should accept and there should be consequences for it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heGateKeeperMan over a year ago

Stratford

Freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of any consequences of what we say.

We can all say what we like as long as we are prepared to stand by what we say

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

The only consequence of free speech is healthy debate.

If we shutdown everyone we think hateful then how can we expose their vile views to the world?

Once out in the light we can see them for the ignorant twats they are nigel farage is a good example every time he opens his mouth he reveals to the world his rampant stupidity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People are free to think what they like and express those ideas if the like. They're not entitled to being provided a platform to do so and nobody has to listen to them...

You have to remember that opinions aren't always factual and sometimes arise from a position of ignorance or emotions which aren't always rational

If somebody is saying something I disagree with or find offensive, I decide whether it's worth entering into a conversation with them about it...it usually isn't...so I save my energy, my headspace and my emotional wellbeing and don't engage...

If they are urging people to harm themselves or others because of their opinions, they should be held accountable for the consequences of that.

I know it's a cliche but freedom of expression does not entitle anyone to freedom from the consequences of that expression...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icolerobbieCouple over a year ago

walsall

[Removed by poster at 19/06/23 08:28:05]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icolerobbieCouple over a year ago

walsall

Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time."

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

Some people seem to be dancing on the head of a pin here.

You either have freedom of speech or you do not and by the way it is being silently eroded in this country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heGateKeeperMan over a year ago

Stratford

"The only consequence of free speech is healthy debate.

If we shutdown everyone we think hateful then how can we expose their vile views to the world?

Once out in the light we can see them for the ignorant twats they are nigel farage is a good example every time he opens his mouth he reveals to the world his rampant stupidity."

Not true. Sometimes it’s a punch in the face

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Some people seem to be dancing on the head of a pin here.

You either have freedom of speech or you do not and by the way it is being silently eroded in this country."

What can you NOT say in this country that you should be able to?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rHotNottsMan over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

Article 10 is very clear it protects popular and unpopular opinions, for good reasons - that are within the law, to protect the press, democracy, etc .

It doesn’t give a get of out jail card for people just to be offensive and stir up hate. That’s why it can be legally limited to protect peoples other human rights.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Someone said something to me the other day and immediately followed up with

"Of course you're not allowed to say that nowadays".

Which is passive aggressive for 'i hold views that are socially unacceptable and I know that and people will challenge me on them. However I hope to shut them down by still saying it then claiming I can't '

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Someone said something to me the other day and immediately followed up with

"Of course you're not allowed to say that nowadays".

‘I miss the good old days’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rHotNottsMan over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?"

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wingin CatMan over a year ago

London

I believe in free speech....but not hate speech. They're two different things, IMHO.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"Some people seem to be dancing on the head of a pin here.

You either have freedom of speech or you do not and by the way it is being silently eroded in this country."

I think that what most people think of as freedom of speech, is actually impunity to say what they want without reply or consequence. Freedom of speech works both ways

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture."

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entlemanrogueMan over a year ago

Motherwell

"I believe in free speech....but not hate speech. They're two different things, IMHO."

unfortuneatly some people dont know how to express their feelings/ideas, without it coming across as hate speech (or avtually being hate speech)

Then we have the offendables who are just desperate to be upset by any and everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

Try protesting in this country and you can be arrested for the possibility of you causing offense.

Think about that for a moment then tell me we have free speech.

During the coronation a peaceful group had banners confiscated because they objected to the monarchy the reason they could possibly cause offense

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Nothing is free

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ld StrumpetWoman over a year ago

Telford

"if one has something to say and says it so it can be heard then those hearing have a reason and right to reply.

if one wants their voice to be heard they should except that anyone who hears might respond.

if one puts one head above the parapet expect flack."

This

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Try protesting in this country and you can be arrested for the possibility of you causing offense.

Think about that for a moment then tell me we have free speech.

During the coronation a peaceful group had banners confiscated because they objected to the monarchy the reason they could possibly cause offense"

Is that because of the laws the Government were passing not long ago about protest?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

Yes it is and it is very scary they are also going after your right to strike.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lik and PaulCouple over a year ago

cahoots

People should be free to say whatever they like but as others have said this doesn't mean there won't be be consequences. I choose not to be offended by anything but the cancel culture being pushed by various groups to silence free speech because it offends them I find counter productive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *amantha TSWoman over a year ago

Swindon

Interesting that you're talking about free speech on the most censored site I use. I can't even talk about my favourite brand of cola without getting a warning message that the word is banned!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rHotNottsMan over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me "

Basically attacking the person core values making them question their beliefs , telling them everyone thinks differently etc rather than addressing the issue directly.

Calling someone racist because they wants

to discuss problems of immigration or grooming by asian men. Denying a problem exists , avoiding debate and making the person feel bad for thinking there is a problem

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple over a year ago

Leeds

Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi HaiveMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Cheeseville, Somerset

Free speech has always existed and always will.

The issue arises in the context of the internet, as anonymity offers people the chance to spout whatever bullshit they like, false news, hate speech and all manner of offensive statements, safe in the knowledge that the real them will never be identified.

People will always say things online they'd lack the courage of their convictions to say in public.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

Zounds a lot like gaslighting doesn't it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs "

Wouldn't freedom of speech allow that reaction though? Otherwise it would just be your opinion and nothing else which the opposite of freedom of speech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me

Basically attacking the person core values making them question their beliefs , telling them everyone thinks differently etc rather than addressing the issue directly.

Calling someone racist because they wants

to discuss problems of immigration or grooming by asian men. Denying a problem exists , avoiding debate and making the person feel bad for thinking there is a problem

Interesting. Thanks for the examples. I won’t reply to them because they’re for a different thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean free from consequence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words. "

And who gets to decide if it's hate etc? remember the guy who got a visit from the police "to check his thinking"then had to go all the way to the high court to get a judgement that "today I identify as a fish" was not hate speech/offensive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs

Wouldn't freedom of speech allow that reaction though? Otherwise it would just be your opinion and nothing else which the opposite of freedom of speech"

Exactly.

As I said; some people want freedom of speech to be about *their* freedom, not both ways.

Internet echo chambers have a lot to do with this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

You really need to think more about the consequences of not having freedom of speech and not concentrate on who could be offended there are laws to protect from incitement to violence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You really need to think more about the consequences of not having freedom of speech and not concentrate on who could be offended there are laws to protect from incitement to violence."

Reply + quote because we want to know who you’re replying to x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words.

The general rule of thumb is that if it’s causing offence then it’s offensive.

If you’re one of the “I can’t say anything without people getting offended” brigade, then that’s about you, not them. I manage to speak and message a lot, without anyone getting offended or upset.

“I identify as a fish” is clearly meant to undermine trans people and self identification, therefore it’s intended to be offensive. Unless of course the person has learnt to breathe underwater and plans on moving to an aquarium

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

You can take offence at a anything i have been called many different things and it is like water off a ducks arse.

I am offended by child poverty, corporate greed, the sale of arms for profit and anything that takes away ourr liberty not by someones opinion however ignorant.

The real problems in the world will never be addressed while all the oxygen in the room is sucked up by petty nonsense that should be dismissed with a casual shrug or thoroughly debated without resorting to base name calling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *esYesOMGYes!Man over a year ago

M20

I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ansoffateMan over a year ago

Sagittarius A

There are two forms of freedom to be balanced.

The freedom to do and say as you please.

And

The freedom from harm.

Freedom for the pike is death to the minnows.

I very much lean toward freedom of speech. I do not agree that this includes hiding behind the principle when you know, or reasonably ought to know that what you say may be harmful to other people. Especially, if they may be vulnerable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words.

The general rule of thumb is that if it’s causing offence then it’s offensive.

Who decides the general rule of thumb?general is not specific to each case.

You say the fish comment was CLEARLY intended to undermine etc and be offensive.How is it clear?

In court the man explained his comment was to show how far self identification can be pushed,how it could be abused and how the system can get bogged down.The judge ruled there was no offensive intention.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on."

Should it be necessary to have to turn the other cheek every time someone says something that dismisses, undermines, demeans or insults you?

Yes we can control our reactions to the world but why is the emphasis on the recipient to change, not the ones causing the offence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

If it gets to court we have lost all perspective and are fucked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on.

Should it be necessary to have to turn the other cheek every time someone says something that dismisses, undermines, demeans or insults you?

Yes we can control our reactions to the world but why is the emphasis on the recipient to change, not the ones causing the offence? "

I often wonder this. Too often I hear people say things like 'offence is taken, not given'. It's another facet of people believing that their right to say and be how they wish is more important than their responsibility to consider how that might affect other people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words.

The general rule of thumb is that if it’s causing offence then it’s offensive.

Who decides the general rule of thumb?general is not specific to each case.

You say the fish comment was CLEARLY intended to undermine etc and be offensive.How is it clear?

Because of course an old white man understands the intent and meaning of self identification.

Actually all that man did was undermine and devalue something that is a lifeline to many. He didn’t make a point about how far things can be pushed, he just set a bar for what is deemed acceptable abuse in the eyes of the law.

Are we arguing semantics now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on.

Should it be necessary to have to turn the other cheek every time someone says something that dismisses, undermines, demeans or insults you?

Yes we can control our reactions to the world but why is the emphasis on the recipient to change, not the ones causing the offence?

This is all related to power and dominant relationships. Language we use reproduces and reaffirms the dynamic of these relationships.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on.

Should it be necessary to have to turn the other cheek every time someone says something that dismisses, undermines, demeans or insults you?

Yes we can control our reactions to the world but why is the emphasis on the recipient to change, not the ones causing the offence?

This is all related to power and dominant relationships. Language we use reproduces and reaffirms the dynamic of these relationships. "

I think people grossly underestimate the power of language

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *essicagraceWoman over a year ago

birmingham

Free speech doesn't mean people have to listen. Eg, no platforming isn't infringing on someone's freedom of speech. They can talk elsewhere and people can go listen.

There's also a distinction between offense and oppression. When someone makes a joke based on the fact they don't see me as "real", I'm not offended. I'm oppressed. When someone says they eat three jars of pickles a day I'm offended.

So yeah. I believe in free speech. But I don't believe in it being a pass to be an asshole.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

No we are arguing for the right to be heard without being shouted down, shutdown or being abused for holding a view.

Opinions are like arseholes we all have them and the right to express them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *9alMan over a year ago

Bridgend

I think free speech is important, once censorship starts its a slippery slope

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke OzadeMan over a year ago

Ho Chi Minge City

I’m happy to pay a fiver, tops

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eyeYCouple over a year ago

Nr Leicester

Utterly, just as the right do disagree with what's been said..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech doesn't mean people have to listen. Eg, no platforming isn't infringing on someone's freedom of speech. They can talk elsewhere and people can go listen.

So yeah. I believe in free speech. But I don't believe in it being a pass to be an asshole. "

You’re spitting here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ea monkeyMan over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"No we are arguing for the right to be heard without being shouted down, shutdown or being abused for holding a view.

Opinions are like arseholes we all have them and the right to express them."

There is no right to be heard though.

You can say what you like, shout it into the void, no one has to hear you and there is no reason that anyone has to listen just because it’s your opinion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I will fight for the right for anyone to be offended. It’s a choice after all.

If you don’t have the capacity to control your reactions to the world around you then that is something for you to work on.

Should it be necessary to have to turn the other cheek every time someone says something that dismisses, undermines, demeans or insults you?

Yes we can control our reactions to the world but why is the emphasis on the recipient to change, not the ones causing the offence?

This is all related to power and dominant relationships. Language we use reproduces and reaffirms the dynamic of these relationships.

I think people grossly underestimate the power of language "

Absolutely.

And I’d argue that offensive uses of language are forms of violence (not physical obviously) that have harmful impacts on people. I think we somewhat get it with the ‘be kind stuff’ but also don’t.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me "

Gaslighting is a method of gaining control over another person, by planting seeds of doubt in their mind, causing the one being controlled to believe they are mentally unstable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hagTonight OP Man over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

"Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs "
You are right there, it is amazing and yes, it rarely happens as others cant accept others opinions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *emorefridaCouple over a year ago

La la land

The people who currently complain the most about free speech being eroded, seem to be people whose voices the majority don't want to listen to anymore. The way they speak it's as though we live in a dictatorship where they can't say what they want. In general some form of press will pick up their story how it was so much better in past, and how we don't have free speech. When I think these people are losing their platform as people's tastes have changed. But instead of admitting they are dinosaurs from the past they need to blame something else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ansoffateMan over a year ago

Sagittarius A

"No we are arguing for the right to be heard without being shouted down, shutdown or being abused for holding a view.

Opinions are like arseholes we all have them and the right to express them."

Yeah but maybe not take a shit in public?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Freedom of speech is like freedom of movement in a way. You can but you also need to be able to bear the consequence of your actions. If your speech or movement results to harm, that's on you to bear.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hagTonight OP Man over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Imagine how long ago rowan did that video and still it is the same, he said "cancel culture is nothing new, it has been around for thousands of years - it just comes in different forms" it is so true, the cancel culture hinders debate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

If a dog can why can't i it is a perfectly natural act?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ansoffateMan over a year ago

Sagittarius A

"If a dog can why can't i it is a perfectly natural act?"

Well at least bag it and put it in the bin when you are done.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Imagine how long ago rowan did that video and still it is the same, he said "cancel culture is nothing new, it has been around for thousands of years - it just comes in different forms" it is so true, the cancel culture hinders debate."

People are usually cancelled for pretty serious things though (racism/homophobia/abuse etc)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple over a year ago

Leeds

"Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs

Wouldn't freedom of speech allow that reaction though? Otherwise it would just be your opinion and nothing else which the opposite of freedom of speech"

Yes sort of it allows a reaction but to the point where your case isn't discussed and is dismissed isn't free speech, reactions of you can't say this or that or that's incorrect isn't allowing free speech it's being shot down .

Mrs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People are usually cancelled for pretty serious things though (racism/homophobia/abuse etc)"

Besides, there’s plenty of people that still love those that have been cancelled. Those who decide not to engage with a cancelled person or their content are doing so freely as they are entitled to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The freedom to speak freely is far too often mistaken for a freedom to force obnoxious or ridiculous opinions dressed up as facts on others and demand that they agree with you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Freedom of speech is amazing but it rarely happens because, well, people!

Many can't seem to discuss a topic without getting offended or irate, I never understand why people can't accept opinions differ and that's ok.

Mrs

Wouldn't freedom of speech allow that reaction though? Otherwise it would just be your opinion and nothing else which the opposite of freedom of speech

Mrs "

To be honest, in my experience on here, no one has explicitly said that you can't say anything. They just explain the effects words can have and how it's negatively interpreted by the group targeted. Unfortunately you can't even point that out with being accused of being a white knight or being offended on behalf of others

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Freedom of speech is like freedom of movement in a way. You can but you also need to be able to bear the consequence of your actions. If your speech or movement results to harm, that's on you to bear. "

I agree with this. I don't think people like hearing that their words can cause harm if they genuinely didn't mean and instead of owning up to it and admitting they didn't know, they double down on it and go overly defensive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ts the taking part thatMan over a year ago

southampton

"We all do dont we? As long as it's not phobic.

Especially as long as it doesn't make anyone here feel like they aren't being included even on an open forum on light hearted topics though!"

You've immediately contradicted free speech there, your view on some'phobic' may be different to mine so who's opinion is more valid.

Howard Donald like a tweet that only biological females menstrate & is kicked out of pride immediately, he used free speech & was shut down. I don't think he was phobic, do you?

Some things are incendiary to people wanting wider society to play pretend but people that give in are weak sheep.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icolerobbieCouple over a year ago

walsall

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me

Gaslighting is a method of gaining control over another person, by planting seeds of doubt in their mind, causing the one being controlled to believe they are mentally unstable. "

Exactly, maybe the huge rise in people suffering mental health problems in recent years is just a coincidence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I do, but people need to understand that with the Freedom to express oneself comes responsiblities and consequences

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Free speech exists already.

Consequence free speech has never existed.

Gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way is alive and well and has been happening for a very long time.

What do you mean by gaslighting people to think and speak a certain way?

^ This is an example.

You know exactly what it means.

When you challenge something by making the person feel they are in the wrong to avoid a debate , cancel culture.

Actually I genuinely have no idea what it mean?

Lol

This idea that I’m some super smart person winding everyone up is hilarious to me

Gaslighting is a method of gaining control over another person, by planting seeds of doubt in their mind, causing the one being controlled to believe they are mentally unstable. "

I know what gaslighting is. Just didn’t get it in this context but it was explained.

Thank you though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hagTonight OP Man over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

People are usually cancelled for pretty serious things though (racism/homophobia/abuse etc)"
Yes, they are and sometimes not, it can be as simple as having another opinion against the narratives, like covid, climate change and the war, to name few of them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohndom2023Man over a year ago

Hastings/Greenwich

I personally cannot add any more to the debate and if anyone here has been offended by my views remember no animals, children, people were harmed in this post.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ansoffateMan over a year ago

Sagittarius A

Agreed. Ok maybe you didn't intend to offend or cause harm, but at least show some humility and acknowledge that it happened.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atnip make me purrWoman over a year ago

Reading

Yes but not in free speech without repercussions. Put whatever you like on your profile but then don't be surprised if you get blocked.

I think the usual exceptions such as hate speech, slander and the shouting of fire in a cinema etc should remain. We just don't need those.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I don't believe in unfettered free speech, no.

Where should the line be? I don't know. But there are some forms of speech, such as inciting violence, that should be subject to government intervention.

I also find the free speech line to be abused by contrarians and cowards when their unpopular views receive pushback. They expand it from "people can express what they like without the government punishing them" to "I can say what I like and other people can't respond in any negative way". I don't think their attempt to shame people for responding is some lack of understanding of reciprocity of speech. I think they're only interested in freedom when it's their own.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

IMHO freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

What matters is less what is said and more the context in which it is said. It is the intent behind what is being said.

People can inadvertently cause offence with a poor choice of words but if that was genuinely not their intent then chill out and maybe politely explain. They will probably be mortified to have caused offence.

But sometimes the context is clear and offence is the intent. That is not ok.

By example...

“The black family down the road are very nice” = not offensive just objectively true.

“The black family down the road, but they were very nice” = offensive as it uses a qualifier.

About 15/20 years ago my mid 80yr old grandmother said the second statement but said “coloured” not “black”. When I explained the reason (two reasons) why that statement might offend someone her reply was “well they were very nice” and “when I was young it was polite to say coloured”. She had no intent on causing offence and was mortified that might have done so. Context and intent are everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andyfloss2000Woman over a year ago

ashford

Free speech is good! But comes with consequences! Hate speech on the other hand that people spout as free speech is not! X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

"IMHO freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

What matters is less what is said and more the context in which it is said. It is the intent behind what is being said.

But sometimes the context is clear and offence is the intent. That is not ok.

By example...

“The black family down the road are very nice” = not offensive just objectively true.

“The black family down the road, but they were very nice” = offensive as it uses a qualifier.

Goebbels quipped that democracy has it's means of destruction built into it and as you say free speech is the corner stone of democracy.

It's a complex issue and compounded by the internet but it's always been tested.

Does free speech allow for disinformation? Would it have been better if covid disinformation had been banned?

What are the limits? Should there be limits?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"People seem to think that free speech is a pass to say what they want and it absolves them of consequences. This simply isn’t the case.

People are free to say what they want but if it’s hate speech, misogynistic, bigoted, hypocritical or just plain lies, then there can be and are consequences for those words.

The general rule of thumb is that if it’s causing offence then it’s offensive.

Who decides the general rule of thumb?general is not specific to each case.

You say the fish comment was CLEARLY intended to undermine etc and be offensive.How is it clear?

Because of course an old white man understands the intent and meaning of self identification.

Are we arguing semantics now?

You are. what has someone's age or ethnicity got to do with understanding?That's racist and ageist.If you don't get the point he was making,that's your malfunction and lack of understanding.He didn't set any bar,neither did the Judge in his judgement of the case,it was not a test case where any ruling passed into law.The Judge did remind us all in closing comments that we do not live in a Gestapo state.Consider that when you are flashing you're righteousness and pc credentials like cheap gaudy jewellery.Dont forget another can of Brasso for your halo polishing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do I believe in free speech? - Yes. Do I think free speech exists? - No, I don't. Every single one of the posts above that advocate free speech have caveats of "no hate speech, phobic speech" etc. This isn't freedom of speech because the professional offence takers will always move the goalposts as to what is regarded as offensive, because for many of them, it's a hobby. An example from a post above, an elderly woman who used to use the descriptor "coloured" instead of the clunky phrase of today, "people of colour". I can guarantee you that if that woman had used the internet in her day, and called people "coloured", there would be a glut of professional offence takers who would have found the quote, and used it as an reason to attack her from their keyboards. Many people have had their lives ruined in this way, which is just horrendous.

Bess x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"Do I believe in free speech? - Yes. Do I think free speech exists? - No, I don't. Every single one of the posts above that advocate free speech have caveats of "no hate speech, phobic speech" etc. This isn't freedom of speech because the professional offence takers will always move the goalposts as to what is regarded as offensive, because for many of them, it's a hobby. An example from a post above, an elderly woman who used to use the descriptor "coloured" instead of the clunky phrase of today, "people of colour". I can guarantee you that if that woman had used the internet in her day, and called people "coloured", there would be a glut of professional offence takers who would have found the quote, and used it as an reason to attack her from their keyboards. Many people have had their lives ruined in this way, which is just horrendous.

Bess x"

To be clear Bess she said “coloured” instead of “black” not “people of colour” which I believe is a relatively new phrase and encompasses people whose ethnic origin is wider than Central/Southern Africa?

Again, maybe a generational thing? To my grandmother it was polite to refer to people of African origin as “coloured”. To my generation it is polite to say “black”. Has that changed further?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

Bess x"
Absolutely spot on."Freedom of speech but only If I agree with what you are saying" is not FoS.We've seen that before and now,Nazis,Stalin and later,Khmer Rouge,Papa&Baby Doc Duvalier,China,North Korea,Russia(don't mention the war) Burma,Iran,Taliban,Saudi,Quatar.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icolerobbieCouple over a year ago

walsall

Trans critical shoppers are not welcome in wickes diy stores.

Is that a hit on free speech or an acceptable measure to stop any trans critics from buying wallpaper?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittlemissFlirtyCouple over a year ago

Southampton

I don't believe there is truly free speech because you can say anything but if it constitutes hate speech then you are likely to get in trouble with the law... actions, verbal or otherwise always have consequences

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mf123Man over a year ago

with one foot out the door

Like religion its just another way to trick the masses its only free if it fits the narrative of the time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aitonelMan over a year ago

Liverpool

Sort of skipped over a few replies but I'm sure it's been said.

Free speech does not mean free from consequence. People only bitch about "free speech" when it is their own view that is challenged and censored. Yet will happily try to shut down somebody else's if they don't agree with it. Very few people truely practice and respect free speech as they try to preach it.

Should certain... Sex offenders be aloud to express their views on certain subjects without challenge or censorship? I mean based on "free speech" according to some, yes they should.

Free speech should exist. As should consequence to any and all free speech.

I respect your right to say something I disagree with, even if it's vile. Just as I have the right to react as I see fit, and you should accept any and all consequences that come from it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ocothumpaMan over a year ago

Herts

Completely 100% stand behind the idea of Free Speech

Also stand behind the concept of consequence; you’re Fred to say it as long as you are prepared for the consequences of saying it.

Chat shit, get banged, don’t bitch about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittlemissFlirtyCouple over a year ago

Southampton

This ... I think even the pope said something similar a few years ago lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I find that, in the majority of cases, the people complaining about the removal of free speech are actually complaining about being held accountable for saying what they want to say. They seem to have mixed up free speech and speech with no consequence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Bess x Absolutely spot on."Freedom of speech but only If I agree with what you are saying" is not FoS.We've seen that before and now,Nazis,Stalin and later,Khmer Rouge,Papa&Baby Doc Duvalier,China,North Korea,Russia(don't mention the war) Burma,Iran,Taliban,Saudi,Quatar."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ehindHerEyesCouple over a year ago

SomewhereOnlyWeKnow

I don’t not believe that we have freedom of speech or free speech however you want to word it. I also don’t believe that we should have it.

As a society we are morally guided with what is acceptable and what isn’t when it comes to speech. If you truly want free speech you have to accept that the structure of society will break down and divide.

What we do have and are lucky to have is freedom of expression.

It a slightly different thing but it doesn’t cause or shouldn’t cause the impact of people’s individual rights that freedom of speech would.

Marc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *adCherriesCouple over a year ago

Cheshire/Northwest

"We all do dont we? As long as it's not phobic.

Especially as long as it doesn't make anyone here feel like they aren't being included even on an open forum on light hearted topics though!"

So you believe in free speech as long as nobody is offended?

So you dont believe in free speech is what you're actually saying

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tooveMan over a year ago

belfast

As the song says

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ehindHerEyesCouple over a year ago

SomewhereOnlyWeKnow

Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc"

Yes. Sorry that people can’t call me the N word anymore without consequences but charge it to the game

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Sorry that people can’t call me the N word anymore without consequences but charge it to the game"

They can still say it btw

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *adCherriesCouple over a year ago

Cheshire/Northwest

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Sorry that people can’t call me the N word anymore without consequences but charge it to the game"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *TG3Man over a year ago

Dorchester

I agree with it entirely it goes hand in hand with freedom, not to be tracked by technology, freedom is life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree with your suppositions. Do you have any evidence to support them? The only people who would be "stifled" are those with little or no substance to their counter-claims.

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Winston Churchill 1948

Bess x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Sorry that people can’t call me the N word anymore without consequences but charge it to the game

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree with your suppositions. Do you have any evidence to support them? The only people who would be "stifled" are those with little or no substance to their counter-claims.

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Winston Churchill 1948

Bess x"

Quoting a white supremacist

He was though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I disagree with your suppositions. Do you have any evidence to support them? The only people who would be "stifled" are those with little or no substance to their counter-claims.

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Winston Churchill 1948

Bess x"

There are loads of threads where people moan about the lack of free speech because their views are met with opposition. Oh, and Churchill also referred to Indians as "beastly people". See, we can both cherry pick historical quotes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"As the song says

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say "

"Freedom of speech...that's the motherf*****g bullshit..you say the wrong thing they lock your ass up quick,freedom of speech just watch what you say" Ice T/Body Count.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I also find the free speech line to be abused by contrarians and cowards when their unpopular views receive pushback. They expand it from "people can express what they like without the government punishing them" to "I can say what I like and other people can't respond in any negative way". I don't think their attempt to shame people for responding is some lack of understanding of reciprocity of speech. I think they're only interested in freedom when it's their own."

... Well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *crumdiddlyumptiousMan over a year ago

Like people have already said Free speech has consequences,

Howard Donald liked a tweet saying "Only women have periods! Men cannot menstruate. Transgender 'women' cannot menstruate." Cancelled from Nottingham pride festival, apparently he liked other tweets in the past that went against what the event is about.

Man arrested for wearing a Manchester United shirt with the number 97 and the words “Not Enough” on the back to the FA Cup final

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS over a year ago

Stockport

I think that free speech is very important and that my free speech is more important than anybody elses, so everyone should be allowed to say what they want, but not if the disagree with me, and when I am talking they should all shut up and listen to me, and my free speech means that I am allowed to go anywhere I like and say what I want and everybody has to listen to me. But it's not right that there are people that force their views on me because that interferes with my rights to free speach, and they should be made to stop it, Suella is right that these people should all be locked up for interfering in my life, in fact they should have their passports taken off them and be thrown out of the country, because free speech is very important and these people are denying my human rights to say what I want to.

* Sarcasm alert, for anybody that needed it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

You do realize that that's exactly what the "what happened to free speech" brigade do? They stifle debate by throwing out that old chestnut instead of acknowledging that what they say can e viewed as offensive? Can't you the double standard and irony in that?"
Talking about oppressive/censorious regimes is not an old chestnut,(how you conclude it's stifling debate is ridiculous and a question for Dennis Farina)it's an illustration of the alternative and shows what happens when people appoint themselves arbiters of what people can and can't say.There are millions of people in China who do not know Tiannemem square happened because the government have banned all mention if it,even from the internet.No where in the posts above is anyone refusing to acknowledge that what they say can be viewed as offensive.The double standards and irony is talking about "brigades" as though one group can say anything the other can't because they are the "wrong"

brigade.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You do realize that that's exactly what the "what happened to free speech" brigade do? They stifle debate by throwing out that old chestnut instead of acknowledging that what they say can e viewed as offensive? Can't you the double standard and irony in that?

Talking about oppressive/censorious regimes is not an old chestnut,(how you conclude it's stifling debate is ridiculous and a question for Dennis Farina)it's an illustration of the alternative and shows what happens when people appoint themselves arbiters of what people can and can't say.There are millions of people in China who do not know Tiannemem square happened because the government have banned all mention if it,even from the internet.No where in the posts above is anyone refusing to acknowledge that what they say can be viewed as offensive.The double standards and irony is talking about "brigades" as though one group can say anything the other can't because they are the "wrong" brigade."

So you're seriously comparing those who are against hate speech to Nazis and other oppressive regimes because they take exception to you not being able I "freely" talk about what you want? As for the previous posts, I specifically spoke against people thinking they can talk what they want without any push back on their views and the irony of those same people crying free speech. If you can't understand that then I can't help and refuse to dumb myself down trying to make you understand my position on the matter with your inane analogies

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I did say I wasn’t gonna stick my oar in here but changed my mind.

Freedom of speech usually, if not always, surrounds isms (racism, sexism, etc). No one gets offended if someone says they don’t like trifle. I like trifle but I couldn’t care less if my friend doesn’t. Actually that’s not quite true, I care enough to not give her trifle.

As a white woman I consider myself lucky to have only experienced sexism and have friends from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds who have experienced racism.

It’s shit. It’s unnecessary and shouldn’t be allowed.

I’d much rather have mildly censored speech in society that protects targeted groups from experiencing any isms.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc"

Yes. Yes it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

I am not comparing anyone to Nazis or other regimes,just pointing out how speech control can be used to oppress,more accurately how oppression can be brought in under the guise of well intended controls.I don't need to be "made" to understand,that is you forcing your position on someone.I don't take any exception to someone disagreeing with my views,they are free to do so and express it. if you find my analogies inane you need a few days in a library of history books,better still speak to victims of oppressive regimes.You might also want to have a look at the British and Commonwealth War Graves Commission website.What did all those guys die fighting for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ent in BlackMan over a year ago

Silsden

"I was watching a video about it where rowan atkinson talked about free speech, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU

He started of by saying how the most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself freely which I agree with, among other examples he talked about.

What do you think of the importance of free speech?

I think it’s as important as responsibility of speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ehindHerEyesCouple over a year ago

SomewhereOnlyWeKnow

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Yes it is. "

Isn’t the ideal of free speech that anyone can say whatever they want? Consequences bring about censorship, no? I thinking along the lines of social media here

And I’m not arguing just discussing the question in my head out loud

Marc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ent in BlackMan over a year ago

Silsden

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Yes it is.

Isn’t the ideal of free speech that anyone can say whatever they want? Consequences bring about censorship, no? I thinking along the lines of social media here

And I’m not arguing just discussing the question in my head out loud

Marc"

It doesn’t mean censorship, it means say what you like however be prepared for comeback if someone doesn’t like what you say.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I believe that it doesn't deserve to go unchallenged

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atnip make me purrWoman over a year ago

Reading

Freedom as a whole is rarely found.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So you're seriously comparing those who are against hate speech to Nazis and other oppressive regimes because they take exception to you not being able I "freely" talk about what you want? As for the previous posts, I specifically spoke against people thinking they can talk what they want without any push back on their views and the irony of those same people crying free speech. If you can't understand that then I can't help and refuse to dumb myself down trying to make you understand my position on the matter with your inane analogies

You're literally talking about oppressive regimes trying to bring about control and are against people speaking out against your perception of free speech. How is that not comparing the two? I find your analogies inane because it's all hyperbole! Saying something can be construed as racist or homophobic or transphobic and that it's probably not the best thing to say is nothing like the murder of millions of people under a regime. If anything, you comparing it belittles what they went through because people like you who want to say whatever they want without consequences are playing the victim. Honestly, have a word with yourself because clearly age doesn't bring wisdom.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oubleswing2019Man over a year ago

Colchester

Free speech is underpinned by the right to be held accountable for your free speech.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Yes it is.

Isn’t the ideal of free speech that anyone can say whatever they want? Consequences bring about censorship, no? I thinking along the lines of social media here

And I’m not arguing just discussing the question in my head out loud

Marc"

People can claim the earth is flat. It's their right to say it but it doesn't mean we should humour them or not call them fucking morons.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Just a quick question after reading many of the comments.

If free speech comes with consequences is it really free speech?

Marc

Yes. Yes it is.

Isn’t the ideal of free speech that anyone can say whatever they want? Consequences bring about censorship, no? I thinking along the lines of social media here

And I’m not arguing just discussing the question in my head out loud

Marc"

The usual definitions of free speech revolve around government curtailment of expression.

It's generally held - although it's not unproblematic - that private entities are not held to those standards. I believe it's something that needs to evolve, but it's not violating my free speech if I get banned from the forum for saying certain proscribed things. (Even if I don't like it)

But in the realm of consequences - people blur the line between "the government locked me up for saying Rishi Sunak is a hamster" (hopefully obviously a Monty Python reference) and "I lost my job in the Sunak fan club for behaviour unbecoming of its members" or "people who like Sunak didn't want to be friends with me anymore".

In a society with free speech, the government can't lock me up for calling Sunak a hamster. But people can respond to what I've said - in accordance with their freedoms. (I also believe that some things should be policed - threatening or encouraging violence against Sunak or others, or defamatory statements, for example)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"People like you" oh dear ....you don't know me or anything about me,but I love You're (assumed) intellectual and moral superiority.Is it your metaphorical comfort blanket to soften the fear of someone else's opinion.I don't say whatever I want,I don't expect no consequences if I did overstep the mark,(I hold a FAC which means I have to be very careful what I say and do in the real world and the digital).I don't play the victim if someone disagrees with me. I am not against people speaking out against my idea of free speech,that would be anti free speech.Calling regimes like the Nazis hyperbole is I would suggest belittling in itself.Whilst we are on the subject I had distant relatives that suffered under that regime,so I won't be taking any patronising lectures on that subject.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

I believe in absolute free speech. It means no one should be arrested or penalised by the government for speaking words. Giving the government the right to curtail one's expression is a terrible idea, irrespective of the reason behind it.

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Historically speaking, both conservatives and liberals have been pro-freedom of speach at some point. It's usually when their own views are curtailed. Tells you all you need to know about its importance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I believe in absolute free speech. It means no one should be arrested or penalised by the government for speaking words. Giving the government the right to curtail one's expression is a terrible idea, irrespective of the reason behind it.

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

If someone I agree with threatens violence, they can think about what they've done at his majesty's pleasure.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Re-read my comment, I called your comparison hyperbole. There's a difference if you can see it but I don't need you telling me that I'm afraid of other people's opinions when others are afraid to be called out for theirs because they don't just get to say whatever they want regardless of how it makes others feel. This is my last word on this subject because you are not worth my time, effort, or energy and I find your sentence structures hard enough to read as it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

So people should be free to spread hate-speech and influence others?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?"

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

So people should be free to spread hate-speech and influence others?

You use your free speech to spread goodness.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested. "

But you're not ok with it because you were probably brought up to be told by society and those around you that it's a morally reprehensible thing to do. Take away the consequences of that and then what do you get? People being openly racist just because they can. That is a genuinely awful take

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ndycoinsMan over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

That says more about your mental capacity(or lack of it) than mine.How superior you are.Look at your sentence structure,ever heard of punctuation?If you are struggling to read,perhaps some more sessions with the Ladybird books might help.Laughable.absolutely laughable.****YAWN****

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"That says more about your mental capacity(or lack of it) than mine.How superior you are.Look at your sentence structure,ever heard of punctuation?If you are struggling to read,perhaps some more sessions with the Ladybird books might help.Laughable.absolutely laughable.****YAWN****"

Can't even constructively criticise someone's sentence structure without them getting offended. Whatever happened to free speech?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Let your speech be better than silence or quite simply be silent!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

Who said there are no consequences? What's legal and what's moral has always been different in every society. Many things which are immoral are better dealt with using social pressure than using the power of force by government.

And also, if you start arresting people for speaking words, where do you draw the line. Should stand up comedians be arrested for the racist jokes they make? I hope not. A society without dark humour will be the most boring one. We might as well give up our lives and let machines take over.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

I'm exercising my right to get this over the line to 175.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who said there are no consequences? What's legal and what's moral has always been different in every society. Many things which are immoral are better dealt with using social pressure than using the power of force by government.

But that social pressure only comes about when there are laws in place to start with. Did you see the uptick in racial hate crimes after Brexit and Trump was elected? If you rely on society to make its own rules then I'm afraid that's simply naive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm exercising my right to get this over the line to 175."

Right behind you my guy!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

So you like jokes, therefore we have to let people threaten violence, or else people will be sad?

I don't buy this slippery slope.

Not all speech should be permitted. I don't know where the line should be, but this idea of the slippery slope is inane.

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

"I'm exercising my right to get this over the line to 175.

Right behind you my guy!"

The end is nigh (ish)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Racism (mentioned) and other forms of violent discrimination have killed so many people. Tbh it’s extremely worrying that people think someone facing consequences for spouting what essentially legitimises (physical) violence is impacting their freedoms.

By the standards some people are advocating for, we can essentially do anything we like, including murder etc, and the government cannot punish us for that because then we’re not free. This is a comparison I’ve made because people, as usual on here, fail to acknowledge the violence of things like racism even when it’s at a verbal level.

Not sure how much sense this makes- I’ve just woken up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

So you like jokes, therefore we have to let people threaten violence, or else people will be sad?

I don't buy this slippery slope.

Not all speech should be permitted. I don't know where the line should be, but this idea of the slippery slope is inane.

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!"

What a fucking point!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *stellaWoman over a year ago

London

"Racism (mentioned) and other forms of violent discrimination have killed so many people. Tbh it’s extremely worrying that people think someone facing consequences for spouting what essentially legitimises (physical) violence is impacting their freedoms.

Not sure how much sense this makes- I’ve just woken up"

Makes absolute sense. It’s a horrifying thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You’re free to say and do as you please. That there are consequences is not what’s stopping you from doing it tbh.

Even in an existentialist pov I’m pretty sure the argument is not that freedom doesn’t exist because we protect people (may be wrong)?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

This discussion has been underwhelming. Oh well, some days gold, other days turds

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Not at all. Social pressure starts first and the ones which are way too terrible usually becomes law. Do you think people didn't consider physical violence as a terrible thing until it was made illegal?

Where did you hear that hate crimes increased after Brexit?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021

The number of hate crime incidents have consistently increased every year even before Brexit. It could really be down to an increase in diversity or just more people reporting it. There is correlation with Brexit.

If you are still concerned about it, you need to check why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

I am not an anarcho-libertarian. Governments do have a role to play. But allowing them to control speech is more detrimental to the society than anything. Imagine what would have happened in the US if they did not have first amendment rights and Trump got elected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"You’re free to say and do as you please. That there are consequences is not what’s stopping you from doing it tbh.

Even in an existentialist pov I’m pretty sure the argument is not that freedom doesn’t exist because we protect people (may be wrong)?"

I think some people do think that protections threaten freedom.

I believe in society - freedom is a collective good. Some being under the cloud of violent rhetoric and the stochastic violence arising out of that makes me less free. Even if I don't fear I'll be threatened (and I do - these ideologies are always looking for new scapegoats)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

So you like jokes, therefore we have to let people threaten violence, or else people will be sad?

I don't buy this slippery slope.

Not all speech should be permitted. I don't know where the line should be, but this idea of the slippery slope is inane.

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!"

It's easy to draw a line with bodily harm based on consent. But when it comes to speech, you can't use that because imagine all the rules everyone would put on what others can and cannot speak.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

There is *no* correlation with Brexit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And also, if you start arresting people for speaking words, where do you draw the line. Should stand up comedians be arrested for the racist jokes they make? I hope not. A society without dark humour will be the most boring one. We might as well give up our lives and let machines take over."

Side point- when comedians that don’t belong to a certain group start being racist or using violent slurs to describe other groups, it’s not really funny to people that aren’t racist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Some people tend to conflate it with social media removing content to meet their own standards. I don't think freedom of speech applies there. If one social media bans you, join another social media.

Does that mean you’d be okay with people for example being openly racist because it’s free speech?

I am not ok with it. At the same time, the person should not be arrested.

So you like jokes, therefore we have to let people threaten violence, or else people will be sad?

I don't buy this slippery slope.

Not all speech should be permitted. I don't know where the line should be, but this idea of the slippery slope is inane.

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!

It's easy to draw a line with bodily harm based on consent. But when it comes to speech, you can't use that because imagine all the rules everyone would put on what others can and cannot speak."

I mean sure you can. Governments all around the world do it, with varying results.

The fact that you don't understand limitations on expression doesn't mean that such a thing is impossible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

Are we there yet?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Side point- when comedians that don’t belong to a certain group start being racist or using violent slurs to describe other groups, it’s not really funny to people that aren’t racist.

Yeah.

If what makes humanity worthwhile is the ability to tell bigoted jokes, then nuke us, Putin daddy. We're not worth the oxygen we breathe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not at all. Social pressure starts first and the ones which are way too terrible usually becomes law. Do you think people didn't consider physical violence as a terrible thing until it was made illegal?

Where did you hear that hate crimes increased after Brexit?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021

If you are still concerned about it, you need to check why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

So because they've increase year in year anyway, that makes it ok?

Also, it's not them specifically that control speech but the people around them. I'm not saying they should get total control but the idea that people should say whatever they want should not be encouraged. That's my bottom line here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!

It's easy to draw a line with bodily harm based on consent. But when it comes to speech, you can't use that because imagine all the rules everyone would put on what others can and cannot speak.

I mean sure you can. Governments all around the world do it, with varying results.

The fact that you don't understand limitations on expression doesn't mean that such a thing is impossible."

Governments have tried. But nothing constructive has ever come out of it. Do you really think that hate speech laws have been directly responsible for reducing racism? Racists will just be silently racist if you have a law. They will keep communicating in unsupervised channels which results in much worse outcomes. Then there is big danger of an authoritarian government using these powers like 1984.

I am not a big fan of the US in most things. But their first amendment rights are something to envy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Where did you hear that hate crimes increased after Brexit?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021

If you are still concerned about it, you need to check why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

So because they've increase year in year anyway, that makes it ok?

Again, I never said it was ok. But curtailing free speech will do nothing to solve that problem. And I never said it should be encouraged either. It just shouldn't lead to legal penalties.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!

It's easy to draw a line with bodily harm based on consent. But when it comes to speech, you can't use that because imagine all the rules everyone would put on what others can and cannot speak.

I mean sure you can. Governments all around the world do it, with varying results.

The fact that you don't understand limitations on expression doesn't mean that such a thing is impossible.

I am not a big fan of the US in most things. But their first amendment rights are something to envy."

'Murica fuck yeah

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are we there yet?"

Close. Just call me me a slur and I’ll finish

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

If we ban bodily harm, we won't just ban serial killers, but we'll also ban life saving surgery. Justice for serial killers because surgery is important!

It's easy to draw a line with bodily harm based on consent. But when it comes to speech, you can't use that because imagine all the rules everyone would put on what others can and cannot speak.

I mean sure you can. Governments all around the world do it, with varying results.

The fact that you don't understand limitations on expression doesn't mean that such a thing is impossible.

I am not a big fan of the US in most things. But their first amendment rights are something to envy."

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think free speech absolutism is not in the public interest. The fact that you think it'll lead to tyranny isn't intellectually compelling.

I also think the more interesting point about 1984 is the role of propaganda, particularly in our current age of "post truth". We were always at war with Eurasia etc. Much, much more telling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Where did you hear that hate crimes increased after Brexit?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021

If you are still concerned about it, you need to check why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

So because they've increase year in year anyway, that makes it ok?

Again, I never said it was ok. But curtailing free speech will do nothing to solve that problem. And I never said it should be encouraged either. It just shouldn't lead to legal penalties."

No consequence = more people encouraged to do it because they know they can get away with it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I believe in my right to close the thread*

(*subject to additional post-175 replies being posted of course ..)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Ok here I come

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

"Are we there yet?

Close. Just call me me a slur and I’ll finish

Dumb blonde do it for ya sir?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan over a year ago

London

Where did you hear that hate crimes increased after Brexit?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2020-to-2021

If you are still concerned about it, you need to check why Brexit and Trump happened in the first place.

So because they've increase year in year anyway, that makes it ok?

Again, I never said it was ok. But curtailing free speech will do nothing to solve that problem. And I never said it should be encouraged either. It just shouldn't lead to legal penalties.

No consequence = more people encouraged to do it because they know they can get away with it"

Consequence exists. It just shouldn't be driven by government.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)