h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Jack,

So are you saying you are a supporter of *completely* free speech - no laws *at all* about libel, slander, blasphemy, incitement, false advertising...?

Gif

The problem with the term 'Freedom of Speech' is that it's an absolute: you either have freedom of speech, which includes hate speech, incitement to murder, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child pornography. Or you don't. If there's a line, then it's not freedom, is it? Personally, I think there should be a line, because child pornography is for me the greatest horror. But that opinion means that I don't actually believe in freedom of speech.

I think most recognise that Freedom of Speech does have limits, the usual limitations being 'harm' (inciting to murder, child abuse...) and 'offense' (racial slurs...). Then there's democratic principle....

The limits of the limitations can be harder to define....

Another problem is that we might wish to promote 'free speech' and freedom more generally in countries that have little freedom while simultanously trying to tell them that doesn't mean they can say what they like against whatever racial/religious group.

Offence is where we get into difficulty of course. To what extent do we have a right not to be offended? I think we have the right not to be discriminated against, but I don't think we have the right not to be offended.

There's a difference between discrimination (and discriminatory speech) against things that a person has no choice about like race, gender, sexuality, height, and discrimination (and discriminatory speech) against things people espouse (like religion, politics) or choose (job, location, sexual continence).

You're right !

Well, yeah, except I'm wrong. There's the question of how much actual free will we have.

Can we help what we believe? I help being an atheist? The ineffable nihilism of existence made me do it.

this has stired a memory for me of a scene from easy rider

when capt. america, billy and george are in the diner and george explains about freedom

its along the lines of:-

people dislike you because you are free,
they think they are free untill they see someone who is realy free,
then they go about killing and maiming just to prove how free they are......

shortly after george gets beaten to death by some rednecks

Gif -
"So are you saying you are a supporter of *completely* free speech - no laws *at all* about libel, slander, blasphemy, incitement, false advertising"

No.
However I think it widely acknowledge that in the UK our libel laws put the burden of proof on the defendant. I would support bringing our libel laws more into balance. See "Keep Libel Out Of Science".

I'm against the any kind of blasphemy law.

Advertising should governed by regulation against deception and being able to show the efficacy of the claims. About 3 years ago there was a case Italy where a man sued the Catholic Church for "abuse of the popular credulity". Such a law as that would serve well here.

Incitement probably has a place on the statutes, in some form. I'm sceptical.

Hi Jack,

I agree with you on most of those points.

But once we tolerate all (or some) of those limitations to free speech, why can we not tolerate limitation of hate speech?

(NB: I'm not actually in favour of banning hate speech - but I'd like to hear your reasoning.)

Gif

>"The problem with the term 'Freedom of Speech' is that it's an absolute: you either have freedom of speech, which includes hate speech, incitement to murder, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child pornography. Or you don't. If there's a line, then it's not freedom, is it? Personally, I think there should be a line, because child pornography is for me the greatest horror. But that opinion means that I don't actually believe in freedom of speech."

I think that you're turning this into a bit of a white/black issue. I've heard people describe themselves as being "near-fundamentalist" on the freedom of speech issue meaning that they think that such freedom of speech should be protected by law including things which are grossly offensive to some such as holocaust denial and blasphemy; even then they'd probably agree to your limits. It's not a question of believing in absolute freedom of speech or censorship but instead about how liberal we are on the issue: where we draw those lines and why.

What I called setting the limits of the limitations.....

I think that we may in fact need some overstepping of the 'comfortable' line.... because people and society change. Too closely defining the 'comfort' zone leads to a kind of thought totalitarianism, in the long run not good for anybody

I explained myself badly, Zagreb: I'm one of those near-fundamentalists you talk about and I believe there should be lines drawn roughly where you say. (I also believe that MPs should be de-selected for lying, but I won't get that one past the sanity-police).

What I was saying is that freedom of speech is an absolute, in the same way that unique is an absolute, or being married, or being pregnant. If you are talking about modified freedom of speech, which is what we *are* talking about, then that is what it is: modified freedom of speech, not absolute freedom of speech.

Just clarifying the thing, not point scoring.

how does childporn come under free speech

am i missing what free speech is

free-dont have to pay, no controls

speech-words coming out of your mouth

how is kiddy porn free speech when half the time the poor abused little kid has a nonces d in their mouth???

free speech sould encompass that.........speech, and in these times of high litracy the writen word

pictures of scum bag kiddy fiddlers is not speech

Hi Taff,

'Free speech' is usually taken to be more than just verbal talk - the written word, photographs, dress, cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (Pooh Bear), etc. We could say 'freedom of expression' instead.

Gif

There's another issue (getting back to the OP) as well - will sharing a stage with 'real' politicians legitimise the BNP? As in 'even the government/Tories/Liberals are taking us seriously now due to our growing support'?

Gif

No-one here is advocating it, Taff.

now freedom of expression is fine

yet with kiddy porn, the child has no freedom, the child is not of an age to give a balanced consent, and so kiddy porn is not freedom of expresion, its perverts trying to hide from the law behind an ill defined idea!!!

That's a really interesting distinction, Taff.

Freedome of speech and freedom of action are VERY different things imo.

Personally I think that a principle of freedom of speech, while important, is of less importance than encouraging people to speak about the *right* things. (i.e. victims of abuse being encouraged to speak out etc...) Society/media currently silences those most at need and emphasises those with exciting things to say that needn't necessarily have any basis in likelihood or bear any relation to intended context.

In the case of libel, bogus advertising and incitement, broadly speaking a prosecution is achieved by showing harm has been done or has been attempted. The primary goal is to stifle the causing of objective harm not the stifling of free expression of ideas.
Our libel law in the UK is problematic to me because the consequential effects on the free expression of ideas is too great. But the crime of libel itself serves purpose that has merit.

Incitement to religious hatred for example doesn't. Because use of abusive and threatening behaviour against a person is already public a order offence as is incitement to violence. By the measure of reducing or punishing the doing of harm it is redundant. But it exists as law the punishment for breach of is more severe than the existing offences. This creates a imbalance in the law which should exist to serve all people equally, blind of race, religion or sexuality.
In addition this particular law prohibits the "stirring up of religious hatred". Or rather the intent to, mercifully. Thanks to a amendment by the Lords.
If ones intent is satirise or criticise religion without intent of fostering hate to it's adherents one is still at risk of having to prove that lack of intent if a spurious case is brought against you.
If the intent is to foster hate, then they are a . But incitement to violence or other acts designed to create fear are criminalised under other statutes those are the statutes that people like that should be judged under. The way to counter hate-mongering is through free expression, not by stifling it.

I hope I've been clear. If not ask me another question. 2:30 am insomnia isn't the best state to explain ones.

I think I'll start a thread somewhere to do with this link:
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/InformationandAdvice/Equalities/Campaigns/index.htm
But I think it's relevent to this thread.