Freedom of speech, should there be limits?

[InsaneApache]

Can you think of a time when there wasn't a view that was so unnaceptable that it led to a prison sentence?

Hmmmm.....well I've only been around since the 60s but I would say that decade and the 70s and the 80s. It was until the mid-nineties that we incorporated 'thoughtcrime' into UK law.

Blair and his henchmen seemed to think that Animal Farm and 1984 were a manual for governance, not a warning.

[Legs]

Hmmmm.....well I've only been around since the 60s but I would say that decade and the 70s and the 80s. It was until the mid-nineties that we incorporated 'thoughtcrime' into UK law.

.

do you mean the 1660s, or are you many hundreds of years off track

It was until the mid-nineties that we incorporated 'thoughtcrime' into UK law.
Blair and his henchmen seemed to think that Animal Farm and 1984 were a manual for governance, not a warning

Once again well off the mark. its updated all the time, the big overhaul in the time period you are on about were two acts by Thatcher updating all the stuff from the 1600s 1700s 1800s and errrr1936.

[Husar]

No that they should kill. If someone holds a sign sayin that 'all gays should die' is not the same as walking with a sign saying 'Kill all gays'

So they just need to work on their rhetoric a little and then they're fine?

Hmmm, counter-example: in 1933, Fascist leagues were banned in France. Fascism was imposed in France following the German invasion...

I agree, it is better to ban it in all countries instead of just in one, right?
It's like banning the production of CO2 only in Monaco, that's not going to save us from global warming.

[Fragony]

So they just need to work on their rhetoric a little and then they're fine?.

No the are assholes, but one is an opinion, the other not

[Legs]

No the are assholes, but one is an opinion, the other not

Surely the results can be the same, after all that Bat'ty conspiracy theory you subscribe to is only an opinion, yet it incited people to go out and commit murder didn't it.

[Fragony]

Surely the results can be the same, after all that Bat'ty conspiracy theory you subscribe to is only an opinion, yet it incited people to go out and commit murder didn't it.

Well sure the result can be the same

[Legs]

Well sure the result can be the same

So which should be curtailed?
It seems lots of people want freedom of speech for things they agree with and are against freedom of speech for things they don't agree with.
Which kind of turns on its head the whole concept of freedom of speech.

Though I still cannot see what the opening article has to do with freedom of speech anyway

[Kralizec]

Hmmmm.....well I've only been around since the 60s but I would say that decade and the 70s and the 80s. It was until the mid-nineties that we incorporated 'thoughtcrime' into UK law.

Blair and his henchmen seemed to think that Animal Farm and 1984 were a manual for governance, not a warning.

The last time someone got convicted for blasphemy in the UK was in 1977.

[Fragony]

So which should be curtailed?
It seems lots of people want freedom of speech for things they agree with and are against freedom of speech for things they don't agree with

You don't have to like things people think, and those who think it.

[Brenus]

"It's like banning the production of CO2 only in Monaco, that's not going to save us from global warming." Sure, but even Churchill was a Mussolini admirer at one moment. The problem is the fin blue line when opinion starts to be against the law.
If you don't like someone, something and keep it for you, or even express yourselves in public without appeal to violence, is it ok?
Ok, let's try to be concrete: Let's imagine an ideology that is against equality in gender, create a "superior" assembly, tell to kill or enslave minorities and want to conquer the rest of the world. Actually, such ideologies exist and are allowed to speak freely, in all democratic countries. So when do you put a ban on them? At what moment you decide that they cross the line(s)? When some fanatic/extremists take actions following the book/platform? Isn't it too late? But, if you take action too early, well, that is against freedom of speech.
You can decide you hate French. You can't stop a feeling. Until you start to kill the French, you are allowed to hate the French. However, if you start a campaign to kill the French, and if some simpleton decided to follow what you told and kill some French, the French might ask you why did you order to kill them, and then wanting you to be in the box with the criminal you encouraged to kill.
And what if you didn't tell to kill, but use words around the notion. At what point your speech is criminal? Discrimination?
Because, in order to prepare to genocide of massive killing, you first have to dehumanise the group(s) you want to kill. Or, to present your group as superior for various reasons, from being chosen by the flying spaghetti, being green with red eyes or more whatever, you are better than...
This path have to be paved with words and books (internet and youtube is good as well nowadays). So when do you put the fence? Some can believe that when the ouma would be realised the world will be better... Or when when all workers will be united, peace and prosperity will flourish, etc.
And don't forget that some truths in ideologies are blasphemies and crimes in others...

[Legs]

You don't have to like things people think, and those who think it.

So which should be curtailed?

[Legs]

"It's like banning the production of CO2 only in Monaco, that's not going to save us from global warming." Sure, but even Churchill was a Mussolini admirer at one moment. The problem is the fin blue line when opinion starts to be against the law.
If you don't like someone, something and keep it for you, or even express yourselves in public without appeal to violence, is it ok?
Ok, let's try to be concrete: Let's imagine an ideology that is against equality in gender, create a "superior" assembly, tell to kill or enslave minorities and want to conquer the rest of the world. Actually, such ideologies exist and are allowed to speak freely, in all democratic countries. So when do you put a ban on them? At what moment you decide that they cross the line(s)? When some fanatic/extremists take actions following the book/platform? Isn't it too late? But, if you take action too early, well, that is against freedom of speech.
You can decide you hate French. You can't stop a feeling. Until you start to kill the French, you are allowed to hate the French. However, if you start a campaign to kill the French, and if some simpleton decided to follow what you told and kill some French, the French might ask you why did you order to kill them, and then wanting you to be in the box with the criminal you encouraged to kill.
And what if you didn't tell to kill, but use words around the notion. At what point your speech is criminal? Discrimination?
Because, in order to prepare to genocide of massive killing, you first have to dehumanise the group(s) you want to kill. Or, to present your group as superior for various reasons, from being chosen by the flying spaghetti, being green with red eyes or more whatever, you are better than...
This path have to be paved with words and books (internet and youtube is good as well nowadays). So when do you put the fence? Some can believe that when the ouma would be realised the world will be better... Or when when all workers will be united, peace and prosperity will flourish, etc.
And don't forget that some truths in ideologies are blasphemies and crimes in others...

That is a bloody good post.

[Fragony]

So which should be curtailed?

Already said where I draw the line

[Legs]

Already said where I draw the line

So that eurabia nonsense should be banned then.

[Fragony]

So that eurabia nonsense should be banned then.

why would that be, leftist logic remains fascinating. Somewhere somehow, it must make sense

[Husar]

Sure, but even Churchill was a Mussolini admirer at one moment. The problem is the fin blue line when opinion starts to be against the law.
If you don't like someone, something and keep it for you, or even express yourselves in public without appeal to violence, is it ok?
Ok, let's try to be concrete: Let's imagine an ideology that is against equality in gender, create a "superior" assembly, tell to kill or enslave minorities and want to conquer the rest of the world. Actually, such ideologies exist and are allowed to speak freely, in all democratic countries. So when do you put a ban on them? At what moment you decide that they cross the line(s)? When some fanatic/extremists take actions following the book/platform? Isn't it too late? But, if you take action too early, well, that is against freedom of speech.
You can decide you hate French. You can't stop a feeling. Until you start to kill the French, you are allowed to hate the French. However, if you start a campaign to kill the French, and if some simpleton decided to follow what you told and kill some French, the French might ask you why did you order to kill them, and then wanting you to be in the box with the criminal you encouraged to kill.
And what if you didn't tell to kill, but use words around the notion. At what point your speech is criminal? Discrimination?
Because, in order to prepare to genocide of massive killing, you first have to dehumanise the group(s) you want to kill. Or, to present your group as superior for various reasons, from being chosen by the flying spaghetti, being green with red eyes or more whatever, you are better than...
This path have to be paved with words and books (internet and youtube is good as well nowadays). So when do you put the fence? Some can believe that when the ouma would be realised the world will be better... Or when when all workers will be united, peace and prosperity will flourish, etc.
And don't forget that some truths in ideologies are blasphemies and crimes in others...

How should I know? I asked the same thing in another thread a while ago and when noone other than Seamus tried to answer, I just went with ban them all! What you certainly can't do is ask for hate preachers to be banned and let the other hate preachers get away with it.

In related news, this girl was just sentenced to another eight months for the same thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-denial.html

German report about the new case: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justi...a-1110675.html

It says the old sentence isn't even legally binding yet and she already has a new one...

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to do this, I just won't cry for those who would treat others even worse. Who here complained again when bin Laden was killed without a trial? (general question, not particularly aimed at Brenus)

[Legs]

why would that be, leftist logic remains fascinating. Somewhere somehow, it must make sense

It was you that said the results of the words were the same, results are what matters.
So why should one be banned and the other not?
The only possible explaination is that you like one ideology that results in people getting killed in hate crimes and don't like another ideology that results in people getting killed in hate crimes.

[Fragony]

It was you that said the results of the words were the same, results are what matters.
So why should one be banned and the other not?
The only possible explaination is that you like one ideology that results in people getting killed in hate crimes and don't like another ideology that results in people getting killed in hate crimes.

Yeah love it, can never have enough misery. You just can't prosecute people for their opninion, simple as that

[Brenus]

"How should I know?" Well, nobody knows. Only fanatics know the truth.
We, democrats, can only try to balance freedom of speech and call for murders. But, if we apply the law in full, a lot of old fashion clubs and assemblies should be banned. And don't forget we are applying laws based on history and traditions. We mixed-up moral, habits and life experiences.
After the WW2, a French writer (Robert Brasillach) was shot by firing squad because his newspapers call to deport and kill Jews on every day basis. The Court decided he was one of the willing tools of the extermination, so responsible for the death of millions of persons.
Some could say he never kill himself, didn't authorised, didn't organised the killing, he was just giving an opinion.
So, that is the reason why in France we are so touchy on symbols and speeches. So, the laws considers that to call for murders, discrimination, are offences, not merely giving an opinion... Over-reaction? The French nation paid the price for not reacting in the past to extreme views.

[Legs]

Yeah love it, can never have enough misery. You just can't prosecute people for their opninion, simple as that

yet you are in favour of prosecuting people for their opinion

[spmetla]

yet you are in favour of prosecuting people for their opinion

That's always the sticky issue with freedom of speech, the fine line between holding opinions and sedition/fomenting violence are very hard to define. Each group no matter whom (anarchists, marxists, facists, militant islamists, nationalists) believe violence as a natural progression and method to achieve their ends. It also means supporters of those various ideologies are always in the public eye likely to draw the ire of the public and security services for fomenting violence, discrediting the state, and are likely to be 'harassed' by police for the most minor of infractions so that they can arrested/silenced.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37098751

Counter-terrorism chiefs have spent almost 20 years trying to bring Choudary, a father of five, to trial, blaming him, and the proscribed organisations which he helped to run, for radicalising young men and women.

He is an extreme example though but those that advocate or promote violence against immigrants can be put in the same boat.

[Fragony]

yet you are in favour of prosecuting people for their opinion

I am? Says where, your mind is playing tricks on you again

[Fragony]

Calling for violence is where I draw the line

^ right there

[Gilrandir]

We, democrats,

You said you were a marxist.

[Brenus]

"Calling for violence is where I draw the line" What kind of violence? Resistance to oppression is recognised as legitimate.
The states in general use violence, the legitimate violence in principle. What is the violence is not THAT legitimate?
Some newspapers and media owned by billionaires "think" strikes are a form of violence. Should strikes be banned?
The problem lays in the fact that an opinion doesn't have to be informed or logic, plausible or even true.
To go back to my example, you might be of an opinion that the French bath only the blue moon, that they were only beret and eat baguette and ingrained cowards, that is your opinion and no facts will change your mind.
The difficulty is to make a law which should be universal, as a law should be. Human behaviour adapts and extremists do. Orwell described it prospectively well in 1984, when words change meaning. Oppressors are becoming the oppressed, killers the victims...
What is new is the "social media" power. Suddenly, opinion are (or became) more important than facts. Well tailored video can turn light in darkness in a blink, and the time for Justice or facts to be made, reputations are made and events forgotten.
Opinions are not held responsible for any effect. Ooops, I was wrong, by it was my opinion... I changed my mind, no harm done. Except of course, some opinions did some harm.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to express opinions, and until now, the counter power was the Court (defamation). Now, one of the possibility could be to ban of "opinion" which are against the law, but then you have the problem of the law itself, and the process of law making. Again an sample: If you want to ban all movements/ideologies that have written principles that go against the French constitution, you have to ban all religions immediately. All of them are against the principle of equality of gender. Now, most of the followers of these religions don't actually follow this non-sense, so, wisely the state didn't banned religions as principle. But, we have an Imam in France who is making speech for women inequality, advocate to kill (socially he said) homosexual etc... Freedom of speech or not? Note that he is just reading what is in the book.
Freedom of opinion is as well the door for anti-social behaviour. At what moment a "rebel" becomes a fanatic? I could have fall in this, younger...
Unfortunately, violence is not the line to cross, because when some use violence, it is too late for the ban. And you will have a lot of nice people explaining that it is useless as it will only make "them" martyrs, and this is not the answer, that dialogues and understanding are the keys etc.

[Brenus]

"You said you were a marxist" Only you and others ill-informed like you think it is incompatible. Marxism is a way of analysing through facts, based on reality check, not on pre-supposed. A bit too complex perhaps...

[Fragony]

"Calling for violence is where I draw the line" What kind of violence? Resistance to oppression is recognised as legitimate.
The states in general use violence, the legitimate violence in principle. What is the violence is not THAT legitimate?
Some newspapers and media owned by billionaires "think" strikes are a form of violence. Should strikes be banned?
The problem lays in the fact that an opinion doesn't have to be informed or logic, plausible or even true.
To go back to my example, you might be of an opinion that the French bath only the blue moon, that they were only beret and eat baguette and ingrained cowards, that is your opinion and no facts will change your mind.
The difficulty is to make a law which should be universal, as a law should be. Human behaviour adapts and extremists do. Orwell described it prospectively well in 1984, when words change meaning. Oppressors are becoming the oppressed, killers the victims...
What is new is the "social media" power. Suddenly, opinion are (or became) more important than facts. Well tailored video can turn light in darkness in a blink, and the time for Justice or facts to be made, reputations are made and events forgotten.
Opinions are not held responsible for any effect. Ooops, I was wrong, by it was my opinion... I changed my mind, no harm done. Except of course, some opinions did some harm.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to express opinions, and until now, the counter power was the Court (defamation). Now, one of the possibility could be to ban of "opinion" which are against the law, but then you have the problem of the law itself, and the process of law making. Again an sample: If you want to ban all movements/ideologies that have written principles that go against the French constitution, you have to ban all religions immediately. All of them are against the principle of equality of gender. Now, most of the followers of these religions don't actually follow this non-sense, so, wisely the state didn't banned religions as principle. But, we have an Imam in France who is making speech for women inequality, advocate to kill (socially he said) homosexual etc... Freedom of speech or not? Note that he is just reading what is in the book.
Freedom of opinion is as well the door for anti-social behaviour. At what moment a "rebel" becomes a fanatic? I could have fall in this, younger...
Unfortunately, violence is not the line to cross, because when some use violence, it is too late for the ban. And you will have a lot of nice people explaining that it is useless as it will only make "them" martyrs, and this is not the answer, that dialogues and understanding are the keys etc.

If get the point but I don't think there is much you can do if he is a French citizen. If he isn't and most are here with a visum, you can just take their visum and put him on the plane, that is no infriction on the principle of free-speech

edit, just for fun, you should look up some cartoons from just before the French revolution

[Gilrandir]

"You said you were a marxist" Only you and others ill-informed like you think it is incompatible. Marxism is a way of analysing through facts, based on reality check, not on pre-supposed. A bit too complex perhaps...

I like it! PRE-SUPPOSING a person is ill-informed and humiliating and offending him. Is it symptomatic of all marxists? And would it be a shock for you to discover that marxism is not a universal way of analyzing anything based on facts, but "a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism)

As I have lived in the USSR for 20 years I was taught marxism at school and at the University. Unlike you I was a part of the society built by marxists and I can assure you it had nothing to do with democracy. The same with societies marxists created in other countries.

[Fragony]

Marxism is actually forward looking, at least for historians, a chain of events leading to an inevitable outcome, predicting what has yet to happen

For historians at least you can be a Marxist and a hardcore capitalist at the same time

[Brenus]

"And would it be a shock for you to discover that marxism is not a universal way" Err, no, nothing I don't know here.
I explained it to you several times and you still don't get it. So, it is not a pre-suppose, it is back-up by facts.
Or, more accurately, in your case, it is a deliberate effort to ignore it, but that is your opinion... So, deal with it.
There is no better deaf than the one who don't want to hear. No offence/humiliation meant by the way...
Can you explain why saying that someone is ill-informed, or badly informed is humiliating and offensive? Thanks.

A lot of dictatorships were built on various form of economical/social analyse (i.e, religions), so your claim is invalid. And if you are more than 60, you may have live 20 years under USSR as an adult, but I think I remember it is not the case. Trying to back-up an un-sustainable claim by a un-related lived experience perhaps?
And, perhaps it will be a shock to you who studied Marxism at University and lived 20 years under Marxism, Marx did live before the birth of USSR. Perhaps it will be a shock, but Marx never "predicted" a Revolution in China nor Russia as he though England or Germany, being industrialised in the 19!!!! Century should be the ones to start. Perhaps it will be a shock for someone who studied Marxism to learn that Marxism is not a religion, so did evolved, with in-puts from other thinkers and others sciences.

"Marxism is actually forward looking, at least for historians, a chain of events leading to an inevitable outcome, predicting what has yet to happen" That was the goal, but the method gave up on the "inevitable" bit today. It is more an "check-facts" factors: If you try to explain Middle east conflicts only by "the shock of Civilisations" theory, you can't explain why Iran/Hezbollah and Saudis/Qatar/Daesh are fighting each others. Facts don't lie. So, this theory doesn't work, you have to find, or add, others factors...