quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Free speech....... Are you sure it really exists like some wish to make out ?
Here in the UK, and in the US, we have laws about what you can and can`t say in public places. IE, some language would fall under the guise of public order, some here would fall under hate laws. My argument is as follows, unless you are living in a nation where you can say anything, at anytime, and with NO recriminations, then like it or not, you don`t have free speech. If you did there would not be lible or slander laws, no contempt of court, no public order offences re foul language.
I have started a thread on Abu Hamza, who will no doubt be all over the news in the US soon enough. He was jailed in the UK under several different laws, including inciting hatred, terrorist related offences, as well as the offences against the persons act. Clearly this is one terrorist who was rightly taken off of our streets.
Would anyone argue that he had the right to suggest killing Jewish, American, and British subjects, as well as Christians, under the guise of free speech. I dont feel free speech alone gives anyone the right to incite hatred, leading to murder, of others. Some may wish to argue well he broke terrorism laws, or incitement to kill laws, but again that is my point, in breaking those laws was his right to free speech curtailed ?
Now we get to the arguement going on between Rich and myself about UK and US free speech. My argument is neither of us have free speech without any consequences, whilst the hate laws in the UK are considered by some to be a curb on free speech, by most of us they are considered right and proper. I know we are at odds over the film, but my point is this, the film was made with little reason than to incite hatred. Incidentally under freedom of expression in the UK we can burn flags, but not incite hatred, although I see a fine line between the two.
Incidentally, here is the European convention of Human rights article 10......Freedom of Expression. I fully agree with both sections
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

quote:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Clearly, paragraph 2 wipes away any guarantees in paragraph 1. Just one example that distresses me is the implicit invitation for the development of a morals squad to police my speech. Ermmm, no thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

A great quote is that the freedom of my fist ends at the end of your nose. That is, I am free to do whatever I want, as long as it isn't infringing on your freedoms. As far as libel and slander go, if there isn't an infringement on your freedoms, I can say whatever I want. If there is infringement on your freedoms, my free speech rights end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Clearly, paragraph 2 wipes away any guarantees in paragraph 1. Just one example that distresses me is the implicit invitation for the development of a morals squad to police my speech. Ermmm, no thank you.

quote:

Exactly my point Vincent. In Europe and the US you are free to say whatever you like, unless it crosses a myriad of laws. Hence the US has no more free speech than the UK. This is clear just from the few examples I listed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Exactly my point Vincent. In Europe and the US you are free to say whatever you like, unless it crosses a myriad of laws. Hence the US has no more free speech than the UK. This is clear just from the few examples I listed.

We disagree, Polite. Europe and UK have many more restrictions than we do in the US. That was my point. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

A great quote is that the freedom of my fist ends at the end of your nose. That is, I am free to do whatever I want, as long as it isn't infringing on your freedoms. As far as libel and slander go, if there isn't an infringement on your freedoms, I can say whatever I want. If there is infringement on your freedoms, my free speech rights end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Aswad, even in the privacy of your home there are still things you cant say...threats to kill etc. I dont see what your point is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Aswad, even in the privacy of your home there are still things you cant say...threats to kill etc. I dont see what your point is.

I meant that there should be provisions for private conversations.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

In my own home I have threatened to kill alotta motherfuckers, fellas.  Haven't heard nothing from the state on it, neither. Just sayin [8D] 

quote:

The best statement of our constitutional rule remains the one announced by the U.S. Supreme Court 40 years ago in Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley: “To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.” The government, said the court, “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

quote:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

quote:

Quite commonly the argument about 'freedom of speech' is conducted without reference to any idea of responsibility. This is despite the fact that most would accept that in any given context a freedom always comes with a responsibility. One result of that lack of discussion about responsibility is that the word doesn't get theorised. What does 'responsibility' mean - what does it imply? It's feeble, to me, that it's so often implicitly taken to be synonymous with 'government control'. I mean, really, folks - doesn't such an implication hint at a pretty childish view of how society does/should work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RemoteUser

Laws or no laws, a person who submits to consequence is free to do (or say) whatever they will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Quite commonly the argument about 'freedom of speech' is conducted without reference to any idea of responsibility. This is despite the fact that most would accept that in any given context a freedom always comes with a responsibility. One result of that lack of discussion about responsibility is that the word doesn't get theorised. What does 'responsibility' mean - what does it imply? It's feeble, to me, that it's so often implicitly taken to be synonymous with 'government control'. I mean, really, folks - doesn't such an implication hint at a pretty childish view of how society does/should work?

Not implicitly but explicitly in the American context. For us the right to unfettered speech is not about a responsibility existng between person A and person B; it is about a responsibility the government has to the citizen as spelled out in our Constitution and attendent Court decisions. It may not appeal to you within your cultural and political framework. And it may baffle you. Nonetheless it is what it is within our frame of reference.