Freedom of Speech

[JoetheRam]

To have free speech first requires free thought. Is it even possible to have such a thing when as human beings we are so influenced by the people, culture, language, science, politics and religion that surrounds us?

Or do we all just parrot whatever we osmose from our individual existances to sound funny, intelligent or to just fit in with other members of the tribe?

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, cstand said:

I have watched Oxford debates by Tommy Robinson and Jeremy Corbyn not a fan of either but at least I could listen to their views and make my own decision.

Both would be banned now by the divisive cancel culture within our universities it’s about time the government intervened.

Never mentioned looney left or woke garbage it’s about free speech being  denied at Universities which are supposed to be open and inclusive to all views.

 

Not sure you have read my post, but the above have nothing to do with this story. It's just a group trying to book a conference venue. I imagine many public and private places would do the same to a group with rather minority and extreme views.

[cstand]

[cstand]

16 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Not sure you have read my post, but the above have nothing to do with this story. It's just a group trying to book a conference venue. I imagine many public and private places would do the same to a group with rather minority and extreme views.

This thread is about Free Speech not about any one particular story my comparison to the civilised Oxford Tommy Robinson/Corbyn debates is a valid comparison because as I pointed out both would not be allowed today because of the cancel culture within our society stifling free speech.

 

 

[Archied]

Really the issue is not free speech , it always comes down to extremists , those extremists on one side who want to stifle any opinion that they disagree with and those extremists who want to be free to say anything they want which you clearly shouldn’t be able to do ,the vast vast majority are able to discern what’s wrong and dangerous to say 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Archied

[Bob The Badger]

13 minutes ago, cstand said:

This thread is about Free Speech not about any one particular story my comparison to the civilised Oxford Tommy Robinson/Corbyn debates is a valid comparison because as I pointed out both would not be allowed today because of the cancel culture within our society stifling free speech.

 

 

The reality with cancel culture is very little ever actually gets cancelled and when it does it's often a good thing.

Stories about people wanting stuff cancelled or changed (like the muppets who wanted the pub Dick Turpin to change its name) are great clickbait, but that's usually as far as it goes.

Cancel culture is just another phrase designed to create an emotional response in people who don't want to look at each situation in isolation. 

It has been a force for a lot of good. It was the public reaction (cancel culture) that shut the careers of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein down way before they were ever tried. Kevin Spacey too.

And it was that same reaction that forced the late Queen to give Andrew the old heave-ho.

Do the far left take it too far?

Of course they do. 

Extreme ends of the political spectrum always take things too far, it's what they do.

But there is no one thing that is cancel culture, it's just a shifting of attitudes.

[Crewton]

People are losing their jobs and careers for contradicting the beliefs or offending the sensitivities of some very loud, uncompromising and aggressive interest groups. That should be vigorously resisted. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

Really the issue is not free speech , it always comes down to extremists , those extremists on one side who want to stifle any opinion that they disagree with and those extremists who want to be free to say anything they want which you clearly shouldn’t be able to do ,the vast vast majority are able to discern what’s wrong and dangerous to say 

Very true. And also massively amplified by the media to create more divide a distract people from the real issues that affect our everyday lives.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

People are losing their jobs and careers for contradicting the beliefs or offending the sensitivities of some very loud, uncompromising and aggressive interest groups. That should be vigorously resisted. 

Examples?

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

The reality with cancel culture is very little ever actually gets cancelled and when it does it's often a good thing.

Stories about people wanting stuff cancelled or changed (like the muppets who wanted the pub Dick Turpin to change its name) are great clickbait, but that's usually as far as it goes.

Cancel culture is just another phrase designed to create an emotional response in people who don't want to look at each situation in isolation. 

It has been a force for a lot of good. It was the public reaction (cancel culture) that shut the careers of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein down way before they were ever tried. Kevin Spacey too.

And it was that same reaction that forced the late Queen to give Andrew the old heave-ho.

Do the far left take it too far?

Of course they do. 

Extreme ends of the political spectrum always take things too far, it's what they do.

But there is no one thing that is cancel culture, it's just a shifting of attitudes.

What wrong with Dick Turpin? Reference to male appendage?  

[Ram-Alf]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

What wrong with Dick Turpin? Reference to male appendage?  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/08/parents-demand-rude-dick-turpin-renamed-richard/

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/08/parents-demand-rude-dick-turpin-renamed-richard/

Soon after the publication of his dictionary, that renowned brain box Dr Johnson received a visit from a group of religious ladies who expressed their disappointment that the good doctor had included rude words. Johnson's reaction was surprise that the ladies had been looking them up.

Such complaints reflect more on the complainer.

[uttoxram75]

 

Interesting legal challenge going on in America about free speech.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[therealhantsram]

19 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

 

Do the far left take it too far?

Of course they do. 

 

I think it's a mistake to characterise the debate as about being left or right wing.  At least in this country.

I think what's really happening is a battle between one group, who for simplicity I'll call the Establishment, and a variety of other groups who historically have felt oppressed by the Establishment.

The Establishment have always had the ability to wield power and 'cancel' people through their control of the mass media. This idea of being cancelled is nothing new.

What is new, is that through social media, various interest groups have found they now have a voice equal or louder than the mass media. They have found themselves with similar power to the Establishment.

The Establishment are now fighting a battle to put these upstarts back in their box. Only now it takes much more than a few headlines to cancel them and cut off the channel of publicity. 

And so we have the 'culture wars' and 'anti-wokeism' as a result.

 

[Anon]

20 hours ago, Archied said:

Really the issue is not free speech , it always comes down to extremists , those extremists on one side who want to stifle any opinion that they disagree with and those extremists who want to be free to say anything they want which you clearly shouldn’t be able to do ,the vast vast majority are able to discern what’s wrong and dangerous to say 

Outside of the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and things like death threats, can you give me an example of something it's wrong and dangerous to say? I think "dangerous speech" is extremely subjective. If you're ok to start imposing limits on that speech you need to consider very carefully who will be deciding what is supposedly wrong and dangerous.

[Loughborough Ram]

Freedom of speech exists. I can say whatever I want, to whoever I want, when I want and nobody can stop me.

People who trot out the freedom of speech argument are being disingenuous because what they actually want is freedom from consequence which has never been, nor will ever be, a thing.

Sensible people realise this and rightly, consider what they say and to who, which is how any normal society works.

[ketteringram]

6 minutes ago, Loughborough Ram said:

Freedom of speech exists. I can say whatever I want, to whoever I want, when I want and nobody can stop me.

People who trot out the freedom of speech argument are being disingenuous because what they actually want is freedom from consequence which has never been, nor will ever be, a thing.

Sensible people realise this and rightly, consider what they say and to who, which is how any normal society works.

In which case, we definitely don't live in a normal society.

[Loughborough Ram]

We are a normal society. We shouldn't let a very small minority take away from the vast majority of people who understand and apply common sense.

[therealhantsram]

2 hours ago, Anon said:

Outside of the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and things like death threats, can you give me an example of something it's wrong and dangerous to say? I think "dangerous speech" is extremely subjective. If you're ok to start imposing limits on that speech you need to consider very carefully who will be deciding what is supposedly wrong and dangerous.

We have the long established law of subjudicy in this country that limits what anyone can say about ongoing legal cases.

the USA is very different in this regard, where their constitutional right to free speech means court cases play out in the media.

In this country we consider that would jeapordise a fair trial, and skew justice in favour of the rich and influential people in society.

 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, Anon said:

Outside of the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and things like death threats, can you give me an example of something it's wrong and dangerous to say? I think "dangerous speech" is extremely subjective. If you're ok to start imposing limits on that speech you need to consider very carefully who will be deciding what is supposedly wrong and dangerous.

The case decided last week the ex presenter Belfield. He had 300,000 followers on YouTube, spreading inflammatory lies about random people in the media.

That was dangerous as one of his victims nearly killed himself and others may have been at risk because of Belfield inciting his followers with these lies. 
 

and who can say what effect calling politician evil or scum and the like can have in inciting people to do terrible things.

we have had two political assassinations in recent memory here in moderate Uk.