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.
Options
What should the limits be pertaining to free expression?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Personally I feel only libel and slander legislation should be the logical parameter. The state should not intervene in anything else.
0
Comments
Its forcing people to listen that i'm against.
Also i think that if you're being paid to say something you should have to state who's paying you and how much they are paying.
hmmm... this is actually a little tricky, trying to reconcile my "freedom of speech" thoughts with my "all advertisers must die" thoughts.
See the "TV IS A DRUG" post i put up a while ago....
Its also something I have foudnd hard here at times, closing threads restricts discussion (at times) and that is hard to accept. Notably with racists - I would much rather that we heard their voices so that we could comdemn them in public, than we forced them underground. It is why I hate the anti-Nazi league.
I agree that the only issue which should be legislated against is intentional falsehoods...
Though I do concur that people should have limits regarding their actions.
ooooh tough one. Under such legislation it would become illegal to call for war, for that it the most violent action of all, targetted against a specific group too :eek:
However there has to be a limit to what people can say when it starts to affect others. For example (admittedly an extreme an pedantic example); Suppose I was a member of the BNP, and told (or ordered) another more junior member of the BNP to commit a murder, in fact suppose I actually convince him to do it, and explain in detail how to do it? Am I not guilty of murder? Of course I am!
Or, perhaps a less extreme example; suppose I verbally threaten to kill someone unless they leave the area - should that not be a crime?
Why would that make you guilty of murder?
Threatening behaviour is a crime. Stating an opinion shouldn't be. Your action there constitute a threat...
heh, under UK law a threat contitutes assult.
This means that if some-one attacks you and saying "i'm gonna kill you" you can respond accordingly, even if they don't have a weapon, or were saying it as an expression rather than statement of intention.
I admit it pays to make sure some-one else has heard them say it before you srespond leathally.... but its good to know, none the less.
It also mean that you really shouldn't start saying things like that just to show face / aggression / make some-one back down.
About the racism : Woody allen said it better than me (cos i cannot remember the full quote) "i protest what they are saying but i'll fight for there right to say it."
In Germany even denying the Holocaust can land you in trouble. I suppose if racist historian David Irving lived in Germany he might have been jailed a long time ago. Would this be considered just?
Surely the whole point of free expression is that anybody, no matter how extreme their views, is allowed to express them.
Who has the right to decide what is censored and what is not? Although some more extreme views are thought of as wrong by most people, there are still a few who agree, and you cannot deny their right to their opinion, however misguided or morally wrong it may seem.
If you use the example of a discussion board such as this, who draws the line at what is censored and what is not? All opnions should be allowed. If a person wants to post racist propaganda, so be it, how many of us will be converted to racism by it? And taking a slightly ridiculous, but valid, point of view, what if the person moderating the boards hate everything to do with boy bands (as I do
The example of the boards obviously hasn't taken into account that fact that most discussion forums do have rules about the nature of posts and therefore, on that basis, can remove offensive matter.
However, in general terms of freedom of expression, censoring this in any way I feel would be a dangerous road to go down.
The Human Rights Act safeguards freedom of expression.
No I would not consider it just. As I said earlier, people in general possess a right to be prejudiced; in my mind most people are prejudiced in some degree. The ideal method of opposing prejudice or bigotry is to counter any 'extreme' view or opinion, not censor it.
well said, i totally agree with everything you've said on this thread it makes a change to see someone with an open mind
the trouble with preventing censorship is that the bbc have been doing it for so long that they've probably forgotton how to report the full facts
Why can't I manage to put things so succinctly?? I think it must be from spending three years writing long wordy essays for college that's got me the way I am today!
Still, I do prefer total freedom of speech than cencorship, as the line is very subjective. And what might offend me, will be meaningless for someone else.
You're free to say what you want, but you are responsible for your statements.
Responsibility? In this society? Don't you need a scapegoat?
Just to add to the pot. Apparently, according to a legal beagle thing in anything goes, if you threaten someone, it counts as assault under UK law. How odd. But responsible...!
Jeez... I've assaulted many people then. Perhaps it's a good job they're not as well informed as you.
Thanks.