Free speech
 

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.

Re: Free speech
 

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".

Re: Free speech
 

:thumbsup: 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?

Re: Free speech
 

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.....:thumbsup:

Re: 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.

Re: Free speech
 

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.

Re: Free speech
 

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.

Re: Free speech
 

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

Re: Free speech
 

Be very careful here :D 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 :D 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 :D

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.

Re: 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

Re: Free speech
 

the bible states that if you work on a sunday you should be put to death - Exodus 35:2

:thumbsup:

Re: Free speech
 

i wonder if i tell my boss this, i wont have to work sundays anymore?

Re: Free speech
 

I love a good Chicken Kafir.

Lets face it, any religous text is complete rubbish translated or not. Leviticus in particular should be read by any Christians! I think they'd find it a bit of a shock. :rolleyes:

Re: Free speech
 

Free speech is a privilege,not a right.;)

Re: Free speech
 

I was going to reply to this in detail and started to type. But it's pearls before swine and so I can't be arsed, other than to say that your views lack maturity.

Re: Free speech
 

I just don't like ancient barbaric texts meddling in to people's happy lives causing massive grief and anguish, influencing peoples thought processes to match those of a prehistoric uneducated desert nomad, supporting the view that humans are something other than a group of animals that can and will live in harmony given a chance.
Maybe I'm just picky :-s

Re: Free speech
 

Everybody should have the right to free speech no matter what their views.
It should be everybodys right to express any views they choose while accepting that not everyone agrees with them. People are persecuted and killed for their right to free speech and to say that it is a privalidge not a right undermines all those fighting for freedom of speech in places like Burma and China.

Re: Free speech
 

'Rights' are privalidges we grant our selves, nothing more. They can be given or taken away and in that sense, the term 'right' is utterly meaningless. People talking as if they're bestowed apon us by some devine being completely undermines the hard work and sacrifice that generations before us went thorough to get us to a position where we can be so nonchalant - especially as we're now happier than ever to allow our liberty to be taken from us by parliment.

Re: Free speech
 

:p I expected FS to jump on me over my post! Blackfire caught me by surprise there.:p

Re: Free speech
 

That is what I was trying to convey!! People are fighting for their rights all over the world and I dont view it as a privalidge that has to be earned, it is a right of every human being to be able to express their point of view, rightly or wrongly, without persacution.

Re: Free speech
 

That's not what I was trying to say at all. In fact quite the oposite.

My point was that liberty is NOT something you get given. It DOES have to be earnt, we're just fortunate that in the UK it was earnt for us by generations before us - something we now take for granted.

Re: Free speech
 

Nope, and I never said otherwise. Doesnt change the fact that for every person who wants their voice to be heard there's another trying to shut them up, though.

Re: Free speech
 

Sounds just like this forum;)

Re: Free speech
 

Exactly! But at which point does opinion become libel or preaching racial hatred? Nobody believes free speech should be an absolute, including yourself obviously, so where do you draw the line? I'm asking the quesiton because I haven't got the slightest idea what the answer is, but I wonder what's worse- suppressing free speech, or allowing the unchallenged propogation of a lie? We've seen often enough in this country that the facts aren't important, all you have to do is repeat the same lie over and over in a loud voice and eventually everyone believes it. For instance:

Not to sound like a broken record, but it doesn't. I did a big post on this a wee while back, can't be bothered to do it again. The Qu'ran specifically states acceptance of other religions. The Bible, on the other hand...

Re: Free speech
 

Not just religion that applies to either. Democratic politics seems to revolve around twisting lies to fit carefully chosen facts in an attempt to appear legitimate.

Science, which in some regards has become its own religion. The global warming movement, for instance, which is arguably formed by a core of totally un-impartial scientists and their loyal band of hippy followers has actually got a large number of people if not the majority of people believing them without question.

Although I've heard the global warming movement described as the last bastion of left wing politics, so perhaps it shouldn't come under science...

Re: Free speech
 

only if someone is bending the truth to suit themselves...

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5...vsfaithpt3.jpg

:D

Re: Free speech
 

I was trying to point out how much blind faith (faith being the operative word) we put in scientists, rather than science its self. :)

Re: Free speech
 

A controversial debate at the Oxford Union was disrupted when protesters forced their way into a building. The BBC's Paul Moss, from The World Tonight, witnessed the angry scenes ahead of talks by BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/7114343.stm

Re: Free speech
 

Yeah it is a hard one. I'm on the free speech side of the argument...(surprise there ;)). One of life's beauties is the ability to have discussions, it's a shame that some people can't comprehend that arguing a point isn't like arguing with your missus ;)

As for repeating lies; it amazes me how much government get away with nowadays. The anti corruption wing of the labour party is found to be corrupt....and that'll wash over in 2 days of headlines - terrible!

Re: Free speech
 

Unfortunately we have to assume that the vast majority of people are impressionable and easily led astray. I don't know why we have to, but it seems like we do. That's why we're only free to say things which will not be too fractious, and certainly can't say things which are intended to be. Free speech is a myth, if there are exceptions it doesn't exist.

Re: Free speech
 

I've more respect for BNP types than for the people who claim to stand for equality and "freedom."
I'd say a different approach would have been better than blatant terrorism, even though I haven't and won't vote BNP I think you're a f###ing coward for using such tactics.

Re: Free speech
 

I'll not rise to the bait, as I said I'm not entirely sure whether I'm proud or ashamed. I would certainly do things differently now, but that's the aging process for you. A better route would undoubtedly have been to leave his prosecution up to the police, although it's worth noting that incitement to racial hatred was not particularly enforceable at the time until the otherwise pretty draconian Public Order Act of '94.

I will say that in that case violence was met with violence, you didn't see the leafleting, it was truly violent. The BNP have not always had the benefit of spin doctors like they do now, they had, and I believe continue to have some extremely violent and disgusting elements. That said, I'll still support their right to free speech. The limits of that free speech are now far better defined in law and publically they do not now say the things they openly said in the past.