Considering the little issue we've had on the forum, and the news story below, what do people think are the limits (if any) on Free Speech. Should any and everything be allowed? Are there limits? Who defines those limits? BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | BNP to speak to Oxford students I found this statement interesting: BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | MP quits union over BNP speaker BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | Protest expected at Oxford debate Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common sense should prevail. This can either be in the form of group concensus that something is not acceptable or on the basis of an individual being offended by content.
A difficult one.. on the one hand, I can see the OU's point: is there anyone who should be exempt from being shocked; why should the extreme left be allowed to say what they like, but not the extreme right? Interestingly, those who invited Irving and Griffith describe themselves not as fascists, but as "liberalists". But the fact is that people are shockable even though these days they like to think otherwise. In the end we're talking of a new concept of Blasphemy, and what is capable of being blasphemed. As a Christian I might object to certain insults to God being made, not because the speaker disagrees with my theology, but because the insult is to a Person that I respect. (If those of you who are atheists find that difficult to comprehend, consider how you (and I) feel if someone insults war heroes for no good reason). But in return, I refrain from insulting Allah or the Hindu Gods. The problem here is when either Christians or Moslems consider that even disagreeing with them constitutes blasphemy, which I don't think it should. But so many people in our Western culture today, whether religious in the traditional sense or not, are appalled by Racism, or Holocaust Denial, that this is the new Blasphemy. Irving and Griffin's view offends people on an emotional level not just an intellectual level, and there's nothing wrong with that. If I use the f-word at work I would probably get away with it, provided I didn't use it too someone, but if I used the n-word (the one that refers to black people) I would not get away with it , and quite right too. Personally I suspect that God is also more offended by the n-word than the f-word. So, I in the end I have to conclude that the OU have taken a reductionist view of the problem of what upsets people. Like Enoch Powell, they have applied their considerable intellect to analysing a problem, left out the issue of common sense as well as emotion, added two and two together and made five.
I really do enjoy your posts, AR! I'm a firm believer of free speech as long as it is not done to the detriment of others. Say whatever you like and spread the word far and wide of whatever your publicising but don't do it abusively. I swear like a trooper and my wife can be just as bad but it is never directed at someone to make them feel offended. Welcoming other people's views and listening to what they have to say is how you learn. Listen and learn!
I think there's a difference between free speech, the promotion of ideas, and hate speech. There is general belief that free speech is being allowed to say anything and everything. In it's purist philosophical sense this may be the case. However, as with everything else in society, this single concept cannot exist in isolation. In needs to be considered in relation to other facets of community and society in which it is used. The biggest difference between the extreme left and extreme right in this context is that the left uses free speech to promote ideas of equality, social reorganisation and the destruction of a particular form economic system. Many people may disagree with these ideas but, in the majority, the left doesn't descend to the level of hate speech. On the other jand, the extreme right does not consider the core mission to be equality but the destruction or removal of certain parts of society based on their colour, culture or religion. Their ideas are purely based on promotion of a certain part of a socirty over the rest in a destructive way. That is hate speech.
Way out of my depth on this subject (in case you couldn't tell). I think where a lot of the problems come from is that there is a crossover in that hate speech is perpetuated by people who believe what they are saying is exercising their right to free speech. Much like me, they haven't peeled back the layers and looked deeper.
I shan’t be able to state this half as eloquently as you guys and I think we are probably all going to be saying something in pretty much the same vein. I too would champion the right of free speech to my dying breath but I do feel that the OU has acted most unwisely in inviting either of these two speakers. Having the right to hold and express an opinion is somewhat different to being given the credibility to air it on such an illustrious stage. Maybe these young intellectuals have such confidence in their own debating skills that they think they will give the speakers a hard time. I wish I shared their confidence. To me the principle of free speech was never intended to sanction the peddling of messages of hate. The right to hold and express an opinion carries also the responsibility to society of how and when to use it. Whilst I probably agree with the sentiments of the old gentleman who disturbed the two minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday, he certainly did not have the right to intrude upon one of the few ways that we as a nation (not forgetting those who were also marking personal losses) collectively pay our respects and thanks to our War dead. Adrian I own up to being an atheist and whilst I accept your argument in principle, I do not think that we find it difficult to share your unease when anyone’s deity is insulted. As always the devil is in the detail, i.e. the definition of insult. I grew up with older brothers and the finest lesson they taught me in life was not to take myself too seriously. So insulting absolutely not, irreverent maybe – depends upon the time, place, circumstances etc.
Whilst I have been labouring away Kyt has put most of what I was trying to say in a couple of paragraphs!!!!
I sneaked in and looked over your shoulder CTNana I do think free speech is a tricky area. If we take what Adrian and CTNana have said and asked them where they both drew the line, one may expect there to be a conflict of views (of course not implying that either is combative). An atheist may believe that they have a right to say things dismissing or disparaging religion as part of validating their own belief system. And a believer may feel that they have a right to dismiss and criticise an athist for not believeing because it ispart of their belief system. How does one balance the rights of both parties to air their views and allow their right to free speech, and yet not allow it to cause problems between them and society in general? Is it a case that tolerance supresses free speech? Is PCism actually a good thing for a tolerant society (and I mean the essence of PCism, and not the way that it is often misinterpreted by its advocates and disparagers)? Questions questions questions :frusty: Sorry guys.:noidea:
Could you argue that lack of tolerance suppresses free speech as well? People or groups of people, governments or whatever, who don't recognise another view/belief etc so bury it.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing to define and has vexed philosophers and politicians from day one. In reality, freedom of speech is bound by the rules that govern our country and society, the problem is that those rules are under constant scrutiny and change. Therefore, people do not really feel that the right is clearly defined. And, that causes problems. Yes! People have the right to say what they feel, even if it is holocaust denial but where it gets difficult is when they make comments without justification on subject that they are not qualified to comment on. The same goes with the Atheist/theist debate. I engage theists in debate on another forum and I used to being called "stupid" because i am a atheist! I do not deny them the right to say it but it does get boring when that is their main argument!
That is true in certain circumstances! For years, Britian has prided itself on being a "free country" but the racial and religious discrimmination lay just under the surface and was not really mentioned!
