Freedom of Speech.

[Shadow]

I know this was raised on the Invisible User thread but its an interesting topic and worthy of its own thread I think.

Ive often heard it said recently that people feel that they are being denied their freedom of speech,or indeed that they are entitled to their freedom of speech.

So I was wondering-are we,or indeed should we,be entitled to say anything we want about anything we choose regardless of whom it hurts or offends-and at what point does something become offensive?What is overstepping the mark or indeed is there any overstepping of the mark.

I was reading an article by Peter Tatchell today-regardless of any opinion of the man himself I found it interesting and thought it raised some interesting points.I also found the comments after the article interesting as they certainly werent all in agreement with what he had to say.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/12/peter-tatchell-dont-criminalise-homophobic-christians/

[nicknackpaddywhack]

Jan 27, 2011 14:49:38 GMT 1 Shadow said:

I know this was raised on the Invisible User thread but its an interesting topic and worthy of its own thread I think.

Ive often heard it said recently that people feel that they are being denied their freedom of speech,or indeed that they are entitled to their freedom of speech.

So I was wondering-are we,or indeed should we,be entitled to say anything we want about anything we choose regardless of whom it hurts or offends-and at what point does something become offensive?What is overstepping the mark or indeed is there any overstepping of the mark.

I was reading an article by Peter Tatchell today-regardless of any opinion of the man himself I found it interesting and thought it raised some interesting points.I also found the comments after the article interesting as they certainly werent all in agreement with what he had to say.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/12/peter-tatchell-dont-criminalise-homophobic-christians/

Shads I have always thought when it comes to freedom of
speech you use common sense not everyone sees everything the
same way.
On the national stage the boundaries are what the government say they are

[Deleted]

I think the phrase common sense is very important as I would say we all know what is or isn't offensive, and of course context is important as well.
People usually shout 'freedom of speech' when they know what they are saying is not acceptable and provocative to the vast majority.
It is as wrong for a fundamentalist Imam to preach death to the west and homosexuals, as it is as wrong for Griffin to peach 'send them all back' because they're out to kill us all. We'll have full Sharia Law in five years and the holocaust never happened it was a lie manufactured by the Jewish media.
Freedom of speech is a dilemma of democracy, far simpler to define in China.
I'm sure good sense will prevail on this forum if nowhere else.

[Jazz]

I suppose that as long as it is within the law of the land, anything goes, if it then causes offence, controversy etc then legislation is passed to deal with the problem.
People are constantly pushing things to the limit whether for good or bad....the law then kicks in & decides......for better or worse!?
And then it is up to us to push again & force the law to change or not.....a merry go round!

[skintagain]

we all know freedom of speech allows people to make false promises and lie to millions, that's why we now have the tories and lib dems in power.

[Deleted]

I think you're being a little harsh on the Tories and Lib/dems.
All politicians lie and make false promises, some do it more successfully and convincingly than other.

[Banshee]

I support freedom of speech, and historically we have many phrases commonly used that we dont even realise where they originated from. When you look into the history, you are surprised to find that they originate from offence towards others. I think once we realise and decide not to use those words or phrases it is because we now realise they are offensive. Some people wont be educated into any new meanings and put everything down to PCism. We are post PC now, but one thing the whole PC era brought us was to question what we are saying and to have respect for others. Its not our fault if we dont realise what we are saying, but once pointed out, then surely respect for others would make us stop using it.
With freedom comes responsibility. Some people use the whole freedom of speech thing to cause any offence they want to regardless of others feelings. That is not acceptable.
I dont care if someone wants to state opposing views to my own, but give me the respect of them being factual and not deliberately oppressive to others who dont agree with you.

[Shadow]

I agree with that Bansh.

If you look at some of the words and phrases used to describe people a couple of decades back for instance in almost every case it the majority coining a word for the minority and often those words in turn were then used in an insulting way towards others.

Im thinking for example of terms used to describe people with learning difficulties.Years back we had the word Spastics to describe people with Cerebral palsy,or Mongols to decribe those with Downes Syndrome.I know people so labelled did not like those terms and nowadays most people dont use those terms altho its interesting to note that both terms are often to be heard still from some when describing others they are trying to insult.

Likewise the many derogatory names used to describe gay or black people,etc.I think its one thing to be making a point however very different when you try to make that point by deliberately trying to denegrate people by being blatantly offensive.

[Deleted]

This is running almost parallel with PC thread, and again it 's dependent on context and intent.
Years ago people would have called me a cripple (or raspberry in London) but it's now not acceptable, yet it's acceptable to describe me as being crippled by arthritis.
People should be able to say what they like to whom they like as long as it doesn't deliberately cause offence, we've all cause unintended offence.
Common sense also has to prevail as well as context and intent.
One has to be more careful within the public domain than friend chatting at the bar.
Personally I don't care what people call me as long as they call me for last orders.

[Banshee]

Jan 30, 2011 13:34:16 GMT 1 milkhope said:

This is running almost parallel with PC thread, and again it 's dependent on context and intent.
Years ago people would have called me a cripple (or raspberry in London) but it's now not acceptable, yet it's acceptable to describe me as being crippled by arthritis.
People should be able to say what they like to whom they like as long as it doesn't deliberately cause offence, we've all cause unintended offence.
Common sense also has to prevail as well as context and intent.
One has to be more careful within the public domain than friend chatting at the bar.
Personally I don't care what people call me as long as they call me for last orders.

hey Milk, I said this on another thread before I seen this one. I agree- everything in context. If you made a sexist joke while we were in a pub over a pint, I would laugh because I know you are not a sexist. but if you were my work colleague, and were working in an environment that was there to advocate on behalf of women, then I would consider that wrong, and I would need to challenge that view.
Reminds me of an old chron argument about the BNP teacher who was accessing BNP sites while at work. I defend his right to have BNP views, but was not appropriate in the workplace and brings up concerns about his possible bias towards students. its all all in the context.

[Banshee]

And incidently I am not even into football,but having a son who has played for local teams for the last 14yrs, I can assure you that I do indeed know the offside rule, and i have happily demonstrated this on many an occasion on various pub tables using a pkt of fags, lighter and matches, much to the 'surprise' of whatever male challenged me to understand it.
Can I just reassure anyone who does not understand this rule, that it is basically a male hyped up issue, that is not as complicated as they would have us beleive. it is designed to 'suggest' complication, when it is not complicated at all. it is very simply about a person about to kick the ball , taking a look around and taking a step back before kicking the ball, then it will not be offside.
its not rocket science. its a simle rule of play.
And I realise that proper football fans will pull me up on this simplification of the rule, as my son has when going through long complicated explanations about the rule, but i suspect that this is based onhis complete disbelief that a woman can actually understand something very simple. Trust me guys...we aint as complicated as you would want to believe!!!!

[Jazz]

Jan 30, 2011 17:10:56 GMT 1 Banshee said:

And incidently I am not even into football,but having a son who has played for local teams for the last 14yrs, I can assure you that I do indeed know the offside rule, and i have happily demonstrated this on many an occasion on various pub tables using a pkt of fags, lighter and matches, much to the 'surprise' of whatever male challenged me to understand it.
Can I just reassure anyone who does not understand this rule, that it is basically a male hyped up issue, that is not as complicated as they would have us beleive. it is designed to 'suggest' complication, when it is not complicated at all. it is very simply about a person about to kick the ball , taking a look around and taking a step back before kicking the ball, then it will not be offside.
its not rocket science. its a simle rule of play.
And I realise that proper football fans will pull me up on this simplification of the rule, as my son has when going through long complicated explanations about the rule, but i suspect that this is based onhis complete disbelief that a woman can actually understand something very simple. Trust me guys...we aint as complicated as you would want to believe!!!!

Thanks for that Bansh, I wasn't exactly sure of the rule myself...not exactly, if you know what I mean?
To me its an added complication of football & I love football but ice hockey is better to watch and the offside pass in that game is.......well, I'll not go into it!!

How about netball, has that got an offside rule, or field hockey?
Plus whenever watching football there can be differences of opinion between the commentators, usually men, so that points to it being slightly complicated, where was he when passing the ball etc etc....... ....that imaginary line drawn on the TV screen!

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2011 16:48:53 GMT 1 Banshee said:

Jan 30, 2011 13:34:16 GMT 1 milkhope said:

This is running almost parallel with PC thread, and again it 's dependent on context and intent.
Years ago people would have called me a cripple (or raspberry in London) but it's now not acceptable, yet it's acceptable to describe me as being crippled by arthritis.
People should be able to say what they like to whom they like as long as it doesn't deliberately cause offence, we've all cause unintended offence.
Common sense also has to prevail as well as context and intent.
One has to be more careful within the public domain than friend chatting at the bar.
Personally I don't care what people call me as long as they call me for last orders.

hey Milk, I said this on another thread before I seen this one. I agree- everything in context. If you made a sexist joke while we were in a pub over a pint, I would laugh because I know you are not a sexist. but if you were my work colleague, and were working in an environment that was there to advocate on behalf of women, then I would consider that wrong, and I would need to challenge that view.
Reminds me of an old chron argument about the BNP teacher who was accessing BNP sites while at work. I defend his right to have BNP views, but was not appropriate in the workplace and brings up concerns about his possible bias towards students. its all all in the context.

You're right bansh I'm not sexist, but it about time you got off the PC and into the kitchen, there's washing up to do and my dinner to be made. OK I'm sorry I'll put on my Marigolds

[avatar]

As we've all seen this media in particular allows people to say things which you would not dare say face to face. The anonymity and lack of consequences and the fact that you can take on a persona mains places like this with zero tolerance moderation are a haven.

I try to use the rule of thumb that I treat people the way I'd like them to treat me. But at the same time I won't stand abuse and this is where it's vital the moderation is applied.

Coming here you can see the marked difference than over on the Chron forums, it was like a bloody zoo over there and I'm afraid the Gazzette will go the same way.

[Deleted]

Absolutely correct avatar, There are people on the EC/EG forum who wouldn't own up to their extreme right wing view in public except at a rally.
If you come to a meeting, you will find we all think, talk and act the same in public as we do on here.
Anonymity is not a licence for hypocrisy, unless like our extremist friend you've something shameful to hind.

Here's am irony...........avatar doesn't have an avatar. ;D