Freedom of speech discussion (2 Viewers)

[mazzyianne]

Hi all,
Seomra spraoi were thinking of organising a discussion about freedom of speech and the responsibilities or lack thereof that go with it. It will hopefully centre around current events such as Aine Ni Chonnall being invited to speak in UCD, David Irving being imprisoned, Youth defence... existing, no I joke, I guess their tactics or whatever.
It is easy enough to find people to say that freedom of speech should be denied to extreme right wing groups as these generally seem to have formed groups (for example anti-racist groups) but I'm pretty much looking for people who believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions. I'm sure there were lots of people around here saying people should be able to say whatever they like regardless.
Anyone who would like to speak about it? I'm aware that might sound a bit daunting, but the plan is just to have a chilled out discussion.
Any takers?

 

[broken arm]

will you be inviting people from youth defense etc?

 

[potlatch]

What about someone who takes a different perspective: that the debate about freedom of speech is usually assumed in the liberal sense, which denies a connection between speech and action.

It's maybe useful to attempt to reframe the debate. It may be possible to preserve freedom of speech in the classic liberal/libertarian sense - being a condition for liberation (at least a site of contest) - while also finding realistic methods through which we can normatively agree on limits on speech due to the effects that they have on the liberation project. Although, it makes sense that unconditional freedom of speech produces better societies in many ways.

It's always interesting that many people/groups who espouse freedom of speech have sectarian interests, so they use it as protection

It's a great idea for a debate, but perhaps focus it on uncovering underlying assumptions first?

Just an idea.

 

[taubstumm]

Hi all,
Seomra spraoi were thinking of organising a discussion about freedom of speech and the responsibilities or lack thereof that go with it. It will hopefully centre around current events such as Aine Ni Chonnall being invited to speak in UCD, David Irving being imprisoned, Youth defence... existing, no I joke, I guess their tactics or whatever.
It is easy enough to find people to say that freedom of speech should be denied to extreme right wing groups as these generally seem to have formed groups (for example anti-racist groups) but I'm pretty much looking for people who believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions. I'm sure there were lots of people around here saying people should be able to say whatever they like regardless.
Anyone who would like to speak about it? I'm aware that might sound a bit daunting, but the plan is just to have a chilled out discussion.
Any takers?

the w.s.m. had a talk along these lines at a thing i went to ages ago: there was a guy from a.f.a. arguing that free speech should be denied to certain people, and then gregor kerr - i think - arguing that free speech was a necessity in all cases. so you could get on to a.f.a./w.s.m. and ask if they'd be into doing the talking.

the point that both of them stressed at the end, though, was that free speech has a lot more to do with access to the means of speech rather than defending or attacking the abstract principle of it. like, if you own a newspaper, you have more ability to have your 'free speech' heard. a pretty obvious point, but one that gets forgotten once these debates start going down the road of arguing about philosophical principles.

 

[potlatch]

Aye, that ties into what said, I guess. The principle of free speech - to communicate ideas hopefully to change people's behaviour - is related to the ability of people to access or create to the right channels to do that most powerfully. So it's a question about how you do it, which I think requires discussion of principles and strategy together.

Nice avatar, by the way

 

[mazzyianne]

In answer to broken arm, No, haha don't think that would be wise.

I see (I think) what you mean potlatch, I guess I'm thinking that the general arguments around what it is and how it's used will come up in the discussion.
It's being left fairly vague I suppose.
Are you saying that people normally assume that speech doesn't lead to action?
That WSM debate sounds like it was good. I don't really want to narrow it down so much as what you are suggesting Tom, it would be nice to get some different perspectives, like non anarchists, but we'll see how it works out.
I'd also love to see some women speakers. I'd love to have some kind of debate about gender in the future but it's hard to frame and would probably lead to ructions.
More debate I say!

 

[xrockridgex]

I'm pretty much looking for people who believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions.

Look up this guy

 

[taubstumm]

In answer to broken arm, No, haha don't think that would be wise.

I see (I think) what you mean potlatch, I guess I'm thinking that the general arguments around what it is and how it's used will come up in the discussion.
It's being left fairly vague I suppose.
Are you saying that people normally assume that speech doesn't lead to action?
That WSM debate sounds like it was good. I don't really want to narrow it down so much as what you are suggesting Tom, it would be nice to get some different perspectives, like non anarchists, but we'll see how it works out.
I'd also love to see some women speakers. I'd love to have some kind of debate about gender in the future but it's hard to frame and would probably lead to ructions.
More debate I say!

sounds like it'll be interesting alright. just from a practical point of view... in these situations, it can be good to have a 'dress rehearsal' debate a few days before if possible - it gives everyone an idea of everyone else's points of view, and tends to concentrate minds somewhat, and clarify people's thinking. and generally reduce the amount of flying-off-on-a-tangent type of nonsense. i don't know if that's practical but maybe it's something to consider.

 

[broken arm]

is the use of academic language and academic debating structures less inclusive i.e. restricting freedom of speech to many?

 

[taubstumm]

is the use of academic language and academic debating structures less inclusive i.e. restricting freedom of speech to many?

translation: should people use big words?

 

[potlatch]

sounds like it'll be interesting alright. just from a practical point of view... in these situations, it can be good to have a 'dress rehearsal' debate a few days before if possible - it gives everyone an idea of everyone else's points of view, and tends to concentrate minds somewhat, and clarify people's thinking. and generally reduce the amount of flying-off-on-a-tangent type of nonsense. i don't know if that's practical but maybe it's something to consider.

Yep, or at the very least, frame the debate very specifically, and ask your speakers to tell you what they're going to speak about a good few days in advance, and make sure you have a good facilitator to keep the discussion on-topic, but open enough not to interfere with people's freedom of speech!

Is the quality of freedom of speech important?

Wotcha mean, armie?

 

[mazzyianne]

is the use of academic language and academic debating structures less inclusive i.e. restricting freedom of speech to many?

I would say yes.
If you look at my original post I didn't call it a debate but a discussion. I dont understand debating as it happens in UCD and I'm sure all other colleges too, I've not attended many but the sense of rage I felt when I did go made me never want to go to a debate again.
If the law society are the future of the legal system in Ireland I hope I never get charged with anything. They are the most ignorant, idiotic bunch of self-important richkids I've ever had the misfortune to be in the same room as.
Oops, little tangent there....
am I to take it you do not approve of this discussion/topic/something about it broken arm? There is room for debate on this here too

 

[broken arm]

am I to take it you do not approve of this discussion/topic/something about it broken arm? There is room for debate on this here too

no i approve fully. another positive step for the seomra.

I'm just developing a dislike towards academic language. Part of my job is writing academic papers and i try to reduce my language to the point because not everyone reading my papers is an academic. it is a challenge sometimes.

language can actually stifle open debate. i've been guilty as sin é on this.

 

[mazzyianne]

I'm with you there, I was at this international women's day conference and it was really interesting coz there's not many circumstances under which such a diverse group of people would come together - the banner 'women' is almost as broad as you can get.
Anyways the workshop yokey I was in had academics, trade unionists, people from african and middle eastern countries, Irish travellers, people from all sorts of women's organisations, women who worked for multinationals, students, feminists, non-feminists, all ages, all sorts. By the end of the discussion it had turned to what could have been a deadly debate if we had had more time. It started when this traveller women said she had invited 10 women from her organisation and she was glad so few of them came because they would have got nothing out of the day with all the academic lauguage flying around. She had a masters and all and could follow it all but the other woman with her was fairly obviously bored throughout. others backed her up, some people got defensive, great buzz altogether, bit tense though to be honest.

Anyways... jaysus I'm all tangents today.
Anyone interested in speaking at this debate?

 

[potlatch]

Why not ask someone to like an immigrant from the developing world who moved from a country where freedom of speech gets you killed to speak?

They'd probably care less about academic language and be more genuinely pro-free speech because it'd matter much more to her or him.

Start somewhere like the Latin American Solidarity Centre, the Africa Centre or organisations like that. Lists of organisations on www.activelink.ie and www.comhlamh.org

 

[jane]

This sounds like a really interesting event. Can anyone show up, or is it limited to those who have agreed to actually speak on a topic? I'd be really interested in hearing what people had to say, and I'm not sure what I have to say would be anything remotely new or interesting, but I'd love to go.

 

[niallmc]

I think it I misread this initially.
I reckon a discussion could be a question of having groups of 10 sitting around and discussing what they feel about it. Do you need to get speakers in?
If that's the case then we could go to public meetings like tom did for wsm.
So what I reckon is a good idea is you pick a topic and people can go along if they want to spread/hear views on it. One person might have to get the ball rolling but then let the words flow. For this to work though the group should probably be no more than 10. If more people come then split into two or more groups - talk shit for a while and then break the groups up.

 

[broken arm]

So what I reckon is a good idea is you pick a topic and people can go along if they want to spread/hear views on it. One person might have to get the ball rolling but then let the words flow. For this to work though the group should probably be no more than 10. If more people come then split into two or more groups - talk shit for a while and then break the groups up.

there are open-plan and facilitated methods to getting people to share ideas and open debate. Even though you may not get a biploar debate aiming to one final solution i.e. side A is right and side B is wrong you can establish some common ground and understanding while allow as many people as possible feeling like they have had input.

a lot of people seem to be using things similar to the "world cafe" approach - http://www.theworldcafe.com/cafetogo.pdf . You can make your own versions depending on the number etc. and you don't have to use their (hippyish) terms etc.

Actually i was at a design one that was interesting - it involved stuff like people drawing/painting on furniture instead of the dreaded flip charts.

 

[potlatch]

I think it I misread this initially.
I reckon a discussion could be a question of having groups of 10 sitting around and discussing what they feel about it. Do you need to get speakers in?
If that's the case then we could go to public meetings like tom did for wsm.
So what I reckon is a good idea is you pick a topic and people can go along if they want to spread/hear views on it. One person might have to get the ball rolling but then let the words flow. For this to work though the group should probably be no more than 10. If more people come then split into two or more groups - talk shit for a while and then break the groups up.

Like those Comhlámh debates in Bewley's, with good facilitation, you can get groups of up to 100 having very open and productive discussions that don't descend into university-style 'debates'. It seems important to set the tone through the speakers but, really, people can say what they want. It's the invited speakers who decide to respond to questions, but people's comments come across as just as important as what the speakers say. Maybe even more important.

 

[egg_]

I'm pretty much looking for people who believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions

em ... so what's to discuss, if everyone believes in the same thing?

it would be nice to get some different perspectives, like non anarchists

Hehe
Ooooh some non-anarchists! Don't see too many of those these days!

Ah only messing, mazzyianne, though it sure does sound like it's going to be a narrow discussion if "non-anarchists" are the exception ... not that anarchists ever agree on anything