Free speech

[timwilky]

Now don't get me wrong. I believe everybody has the right to free speech and because you do not agree with somebody you have no right to silence them

I therefore applaud the Oxford union for inviting prats like Nick Griffin and David Irvine to speak in a debate about free speech as this should not be a platform to air their views but a platform that includes people who feel their right to free speech has been curtailed.

Those who would seek to silence extremists. give them legitimacy.I say let them speak and give all the opportunity to analyse and dismiss their argument.

At the same time I condemn those who call for fatwas etc because somebody has written a book you disagree with or published a cartoon that ridicules your religion. I was brought up a catholic. Dave Allen did a fine job of exposing the hypocrisy within the catholic faith. I think a Christian god would have said to Dave. "You made me smile". I worry about all the incitement to hatred crimes now on the statute book as there is little basis to say what is incitement and what is your free speech on a subject that may be a touch controversial.

I therefore welcome grown up comment. Am I now a extremist that supports the like of Griffin/Irvine. Am I a racist even though a few Muslim friends have expressed similar views to me. Or am I English. Supporting the right of free men.

Over to you.

[squirrel_hunter]

I firmly agree with you.

I am a supporter of the BMP/ Conservative party. These people should be allowed to express their views so we can reason with or ridicule them as required. If you censor and prevent the expression of a persons views you will give them an aurora of mystique and reverence that is undeserved and will promote their views. Just look at the "video nasties" of the 80's or the rise of the Neio Nazis in Germany and other European countries.

However some may disagree with me and the views I assert in the above. And I am more than happy with that. All I ask is you form a constructive argument and we have a proper debate.

A quote widely attributed to Voltaire sums up my beliefs on this subject quite well - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[northwind]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Those who would seek to silence extremists. give them legitimacy.I say let them speak and give all the opportunity to analyse and dismiss their argument.

You can't stop an argument by silencing it, it just makes it more appealing to some people.

But then... Whats the line, freedom of speech doesn't protect the right to shout "fire" in a cinema. And where does free speech become harrassment? What about libel, or otherwise maliciously spreading lies or misinformation? What about incitement to riot, or encouraging young kids to become terrorists? And at which point does talking nonsense in the pub become incitement, or conspiracy? What about disclosure of confidential information, or information essential to a police action? All of these can possibly present reasonable grounds to limit free speech, so, where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by northwind

You can't stop an argument by silencing it, it just makes it more appealing to some people.

But then... Whats the line, freedom of speech doesn't protect the right to shout "fire" in a cinema. And where does free speech become harrassment? What about libel, or otherwise maliciously spreading lies or misinformation? What about incitement to riot, or encouraging young kids to become terrorists? And at which point does talking nonsense in the pub become incitement, or conspiracy? What about disclosure of confidential information, or information essential to a police action? All of these can possibly present reasonable grounds to limit free speech, so, where do you draw the line?

Free Speech is being able to air your views without fear of goverment censorship, not an route to commit crimes such as racial hatred and libel without fear of prosecution. It would be like saying murder was a method of demonstrating your right to protest.

It's amazing you're not allowed free speech outside the House of Commons anymore, what a step backwards for democracy! However I'm grateful everyday to live in a country where free speech is still a given right.

It's amusing that some religous groups use their right for free speech; to speak freely ; to complain that we have to much free speech.....

Freedom of speech comes with a certain responsiblity too, don't you think?

The freedom to say something doesn't neccesarily mean you should say it.

I couldn't agree more

I strikes me that those individuals trying to restrict the right of the individual to freely make (and hear) speeches are every bit as dangerous as the so called extremists.

I for one wouldn't mind hearing with my own ears (and not the sanitised/spun version in the press) as to what parts of the western world have done to p**s of the Muselim community so much that they feel that their only recourse is to turn to violence.

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with BNP supporters but here goes.

Firstly, it's a debating society for God sake, not much of a debate if you only debate with people who agree with you.

Secondly, debate and blowing their idiotic flawed thinking out the water (and sorry, but that'll be *my* free speech) is the only way to condemn these loonies to the back pages of history. A fundamental facet of democracy is that the way to tackle extremism is not through violence but through dialogue.

During college I was part of something that I'm still not sure whether I'm proud of or ashamed of. A BNP candidate was distributing some extremely disgusting leaflets around the college (and regardless of what you may think, there were, and I believe still are, some extremely racist and disturbing elements within the BNP), that were basically calling on all white students to "encourage" minority students to leave the college. So I was a part of a group, one may go so far as to call it a mob, who put a brick through the window of this candidate and spray painted his door.

I'll still fight the BNP (and David Irvine for that matter) at every opportunity, but my methods have changed over the years. And without debate, there's no way we can show the world what flawed and disturbed people these are.

Originally Posted by Tris

I for one wouldn't mind hearing with my own ears (and not the sanitised/spun version in the press) as to what parts of the western world have done to p**s of the Muselim community so much that they feel that their only recourse is to turn to violence.

The Korans states there can only be one religion and that you should fight until the whole world follows Islam.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

The Korans states there can only be one religion and that you should fight until the whole world follows Islam.

Be very careful here You're likely to get some know it all like me pop up and say "Where exactly does it say this?" Because the Koran was not written in English, and neither was the Bible for that matter, you get all sorts of translation difficulties. I suspect you're referring to the translation of "kafir", which has been variously taken as either "infidel", "unbeliever", or more commonly "ingrate", ie. ungrateful. Jews, Christians etc, are not unbelievers or ungrateful of God's graces and therefore are not "kafir".

As many quotes you can find in the Koran to state one thing, I'm sure there are just as many that state the opposite. Funnily enough the exact same thing happens with the Bible To all those fundamental christians who say that homosexuals will burn in hell, just point out that the exact same book which states this also states the same fate for anyone caught eating pork (Leviticus). Offer them a bacon sarnie

EDIT: Sorry for the thread derail, this is not about the rights and wrongs of religion (and I think we can all agree that every religion has both rights and wrongs) but the rights and responsibilities of free speech.

I encourage everybody to air their veiws, to put forward the evidence which supports their opinions. I don't like it when someone makes a statement and cant back up that opinon, becasue then they can't argue back with somone who is rejecting their viewpoint because that other person has evidence to the contrary.

I hate that schools nowadays dont encourage this sort of arguing, that the teacher is always right, that kids can't use a bit of initiative for fear of being told they are wrong.

Free speech for everyone I say, as long as you can take people arguing back at you.

Matt