What are the limits of free speech? (1 Viewer)

[Scientician 0.8]

Most of yiz have contributed to that humongous thread about sexism, homophobia and latterly racism. So what do you think are the limits of free speech? Should there be any? Should an appreciation that people are free to think and say what they like be tempered with consideration for others?

 

[pete]

Most of yiz have contributed to that humongous thread about sexism, homophobia and latterly racism. So what do you think are the limits of free speech? Should there be any? Should an appreciation that people are free to think and say what they like be tempered with consideration for others?

banned.

thread locked.

 

[the departed]

shhhhh. youll only get sued.

 

[ratmonkey]

No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no; there's no limit.

 

[ernesto]

see: the phelps

 

[Diddles]

I think you should be able to say anything you like. What you should not be allowed to do is say anything you like in a situation where someone is not in a position to completely ignore you.

 

[imagoo]

Most of yiz have contributed to that humongous thread about sexism, homophobia and latterly racism. So what do you think are the limits of free speech? Should there be any? Should an appreciation that people are free to think and say what they like be tempered with consideration for others?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. You know that...|..|

 

[flashback]

Its a tricky one.
I suppose any speech that is about the intent to harm other people should be limited. Unless those people are Bill O'Reilly and or the TCD philosophy soc. That goes without saying.

Emm, the thing about that is... basically a lot of what Bush says is threats and intents to harm.
So... yeah, there would have to be a caveat to get around this.
How about : No threatening or malicious speeches against others, unless you are more important than normal people.

 

[Squiggle]

The right to free speech makes an assumption that what people are going to say will be worth listening to. As Diddles said, I don't care what people say as long as I'm in a position to walk away or ignore it.

On a personal level, I believe that people don't think, or consider the rights of other people, regularly enough before they speak their mind.

 

[RSJ]

The whole free speech thing is more and more being invoked to allow people to say some racist or sexist shit. Long as it's not hateful or inciting people to hate, i got no problem with it cos i can always just walk away.

 

[oh shit]

I would have said "freedom of speech should never be limited" which is quite an abstract, ideological position

then around the time of the anti-Muslim cartoon things there was a public debate at which phil scraton (a critical criminologist) pointed out that freedom of speech is a right which is not absolute in human rights law, in that it has to be balanced against the right to life.

this was the view taken by the courts when they put an injunction on the English press from finding out and publishing the new identities given to the two young men who, as children, killed Jamie Bulger, upon their release from prison.

The courts reasoned, quite correctly, that freedom of speech of the press could not be invoked to justify publishing the information that would allow the people who had publicly promised to kill the two men to carry out their threats.

so there's a limit, maybe.

 

[egg_]

Of course there's a limit. No right is absolute, not even the right to life

 

[RSJ]

Egg_, yesterday.

 

[Rogue]

I would have said "freedom of speech should never be limited" which is quite an abstract, ideological position

then around the time of the anti-Muslim cartoon things there was a public debate at which phil scraton (a critical criminologist) pointed out that freedom of speech is a right which is not absolute in human rights law, in that it has to be balanced against the right to life.

this was the view taken by the courts when they put an injunction on the English press from finding out and publishing the new identities given to the two young men who, as children, killed Jamie Bulger, upon their release from prison.

The courts reasoned, quite correctly, that freedom of speech of the press could not be invoked to justify publishing the information that would allow the people who had publicly promised to kill the two men to carry out their threats.

so there's a limit, maybe.

Well said.

There's also the point that all rights carry responsibilities. The right to freedom of speech demands that what you freely say you say with consideration and respect, the right to free speech doesn't mean 'I can say what the fuck I like and fuck you if you can't handle it'. Freedom of speech like all rights/resposibilities is a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community (whichever community is in the local context of the event especially).

 

[shitepipe]

Freedom is not constituted primarily of privileges but of responsibilities.

or something

 

[oh shit]

Of course there's a limit. No right is absolute, not even the right to life

it isn't? how come?

 

[Ciansy]

it isn't? how come?

The first time ever that a decision was made by a person, group or administrative body to sacrifice even one person's life for the perceived greater good of others, and that decision was supported by a majority of those affected, the right to life became inabsolute.

 

[Lord Damian]

Most of yiz have contributed to that humongous thread about sexism, homophobia and latterly racism. So what do you think are the limits of free speech? Should there be any? Should an appreciation that people are free to think and say what they like be tempered with consideration for others?

interesting question

I think you should be able to say anything you like. What you should not be allowed to do is say anything you like in a situation where someone is not in a position to completely ignore you.

i was basically of this mind until...

I would have said "freedom of speech should never be limited" which is quite an abstract, ideological position

then around the time of the anti-Muslim cartoon things there was a public debate at which phil scraton (a critical criminologist) pointed out that freedom of speech is a right which is not absolute in human rights law, in that it has to be balanced against the right to life.

this was the view taken by the courts when they put an injunction on the English press from finding out and publishing the new identities given to the two young men who, as children, killed Jamie Bulger, upon their release from prison.

The courts reasoned, quite correctly, that freedom of speech of the press could not be invoked to justify publishing the information that would allow the people who had publicly promised to kill the two men to carry out their threats.

so there's a limit, maybe.

...this post. why oh why can't ONE question in my fucking life have a cut and dry answer???

AND WHY AM I UP AT 5 IN THE MORNING?!??!

i'm going to print this thread out, light the paper and burn my fucking house down. makes as much sense as anything else in this crazy mixed up world.

 

[oh shit]

The first time ever that a decision was made by a person, group or administrative body to sacrifice even one person's life for the perceived greater good of others, and that decision was supported by a majority of those affected, the right to life became inabsolute.

did i miss a meeting? are we worshipping zeus again or something?

 

[RSJ]

I suppose if you can get away with killing someone in self defence, you could say that person's right to life was inabsolute? Is inabsolute even word?