If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Restrictions that should be attached to the main "Freedoms" in this country.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
By restrictions attatched to freedoms, I mean for example defamation as a restriction to the freedom of speech. So, while it is ok to speek freely, it is not ok to publish defamatory statements about people.
Another example, the freedom of assembly is the freedom to meet with people; in this instance lets say in a public place. A restriction attached to this freedom is the offence which is committed when a person willfully disrupts free passage along a highway.
Does anyone have issues with any restrictions on freedoms? Does anyone think that certain restrictions should be put in place?
It was a discussion I had earlier in a class, that's the reason for the topic.
Feel free to let this drop if you think I'm talking crazy.
Another example, the freedom of assembly is the freedom to meet with people; in this instance lets say in a public place. A restriction attached to this freedom is the offence which is committed when a person willfully disrupts free passage along a highway.
Does anyone have issues with any restrictions on freedoms? Does anyone think that certain restrictions should be put in place?
It was a discussion I had earlier in a class, that's the reason for the topic.
Feel free to let this drop if you think I'm talking crazy.
0
Comments
I think every last rational person can tell the difference between suppressing freedom of speech and stamping out racist or otherwise hatred-filled comments.
Anyway - I think that at the moment our society is a bit too mixed with too many people with too many beleifs. Now beleive me I don't beleive in segregation (theres a posh word I just cant remember it) but currently in our society different people have so many different sets of morals, and the people in power are generally white (or brought up in a 'good' school rather than black slum living) and from middle to upper class. Because of this, and because of so many small communities that are unable to break through to this level the politicians are out of touch so there is an area for self-governship.
This self-governship allows hateful, or racist comments in some places but in others it is strictly frowned upon. This breaks down to even very small communities and even family households. In mine racism is strongly discouraged against and we have good cultural links. My cousin is half-cast and my old best friend (he moved away) was black. But in another household of someone I know househole racism isn't seen as bad but merely matter of factly. They just see themselves as better than black people.
And this is true in all aspects of society that different places have their own rules. Sometimes the government must allow people to govern themselves because there cannot be a representative for every single person in the house of commons. I beleive that if someone goes into a town centre and is actively hateful and upsetting people then the police should move him on but nothing more serious. We can't make Britain into a police state.
Defamation doesn’t make physical harm so it’s everybody’s right to insult me in any way they like. This doesn’t make them my friends but nobody has an obligation to be my friend.
It would be wonderful if duels were legalized but whining to mommy ( authorities) that bad boys call names? Thank you.
In the case of freedom of assembly, then you should acquire the permission of the property owner BEFORE you congregate.
Defamation is making a false statement about someone which damages their reputation. Under the catagories of defamation falls obvious examples of libel defamation such as articles published in newspapers, videos, CD's and even paintings.
It's not quite as simple as calling your best mate a little bitch down the pub. The statement has to be false, and it has to cause damage to the persons reputation. Would you want someone printing that you favoured sex with dead sheep? Or would you rightfully 'whine to mommy'?
Back to topic...
Edited* Misuse of word.
That some people claim not to be affected by insults is irrelevant. The fact is that emotional harm is every bit as real as physical harm, and if you don't believe people should have the right to punch others then they don't have the right to insult them either.
If you really believe the old adage "sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me" then you have a lot to learn about people...
Does free speech include the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?
or "theatre!" in a crowded fire...
Sorry but 'emotional harm' is subjective. Physical harm generally isn't.
If Arsenal beat Tottenham on Sunday, Spurs fans would be 'emotionally harmed'. Should there REALLY be a law against that??!
And take offence. SO many things offend people and THAT is truly subjective.
Really you can't make legislation based on 'emotional harm'!!!
Complete and absolute freedom is limited by thought and physics. If we could fly and walk through walls... now that would be freedom.
But I don't see how we can live in a free society as I don't believe freedom exists at all. mainly because we can't completely trust the government. For example if we were in a free society and went to the supermarket... would we really know what's in our food? Shouldn't we have the freedom to eat cruelty free meat and GM free food? What if we wanted coffee beans that were fair trade? Surely in a completely free society food labels would say 'this product comes from exploited workers in Columbia' because technically we'd want the freedom to eat exactly what we want and to know where it came from. Not allowing us to do so would be restricting our freedom...
But then some people might want the ignorance of what they are eating... and putting the source on the label would restrict their freedom. How do we keep everybody happy?
If we knew everything about the companies we buy from and about the government (so we have enough knowledge for complete freedom of choice) the country would be haywire... wouldn't it?
Just an idea...
Psychological harm often causes more lasting damage than physical harm. If you haven't worked this out yet, you don't understand people very well...
You cannot make laws against it for that purpose!
Fuck racism!
I ain't no racist, but there's too much of a brew-ha-ha surrounding 'racism' these days. I say people have a right to be racist!
To Aladdin. Do people have the right to think publicly?
And if one person (you) thinks monocrat is right 99% of the time and 100 others (the rest) think he's wrong 99% of the time, what percentage of the total time is monocrat actually right? Get those calculators out!
Just because something is subjective doesn't make it any less real. Love is subjective. It still exists.
You need to grow up a bit I think.
Yes you have the right to think what you like. No one has ever said otherwise. Same as I have the right to call you an immature fool.
nobody wants tp make laws regarding love - and dot say marriage cause marrying for 'love' has only been popular in the last 100/150 years at most
But if someone thing is purely subject to personal feeling, how can you make an OBJECTIVE law against it!!?
It's simply not possible!
Pain is subjective anyway. Some people feel no physical pain so presumably it's okay to punch them then?
And those people aren't normal since pain is a natural respsonse. A non sequitur.
Offence (a form of emotional harm) is clearly subjective. You cannot have laws outlawing ANY imaginable form of offence.
And yes, you can have laws governing verbal/hatred/racist abuse. They exist on every country in the world and work perfectly fine for 99.9999999999999% of the population. If you and two others disagree, that's too bad matey!
It's got nothing to do with anything subjective.
Well 'matey' I never mentioned racist abuse in my former post! If someone is too sensitive about hearing the word ****** it's their loss.
And emotional pain is the normal response to abuse, just as heartbeats are normal as well.
Everybody feels it. If you are immune or indifferent to all verbal abuse, then you are an anomaly.
But the rest of the world isn't. Therefore it is proper that there are laws restriciting abuse.
put simply
with rights come responsibilites