Freedom of Speech

[PistoldPete]

56 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But they are free to have those views. It might mean people are unhappy with them expressing it, and there could be repercussions in their communities later - but do we want people arrested for expressing it? 

From our perspective it's not a controversial thing, but I can acknowledge that there's plenty of countries who don't hold our imperialist past in high regard and see the Royal family as a central tenet of what happened. 

I have already seen criticism of Liz Truss dismissed as misogyny. I think that’s the sort of cancel culture that a lot of people don’t like. You can’t criticise Truss because she’s a woman . Similar with that Finnish Pm. Not that I thought she did much wrong just having a topless lady at a party . Which doesn’t seem that bad to me.
 

 

[GboroRam]

20 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't understand...was that all they did, hold up that banner?  Surely they weren't arrested for just that?

Honestly I don't know. That's why I left some wiggle room. I've come to not trust what I read. 

[GboroRam]

11 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I have already seen criticism of Liz Truss dismissed as misogyny. I think that’s the sort of cancel culture that a lot of people don’t like. You can’t criticise Truss because she’s a woman . Similar with that Finnish Pm. Not that I thought she did much wrong just having a topless lady at a party . Which doesn’t seem that bad to me.
 

 

Surely that's the point of freedom of speech, the way its being discussed here. You're allowed to criticise Liz Truss, you're not going to be arrested for it. And you are allowed to dismiss the criticism as mysoginistic, nobody is going to arrest you for that either. And you're allowed to criticise people who say you're mysoginistic for criticising her, safe in the knowledge that you won't be arrested. But your local paper, your local gentlemen's club, your local comedy club, your employer and the owner of any private social media platform etc may choose to not give you access to share any or all of the above. And that's not affecting your freedom of speech. That doesn't actually exist. 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

 

it’s a myth. Every bugger wants to tell you what to think..

Edited September 11, 2022 by Dean (hick) Saunders

[Alph]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

But they are free to have those views. It might mean people are unhappy with them expressing it, and there could be repercussions in their communities later - but do we want people arrested for expressing it? 

From our perspective it's not a controversial thing, but I can acknowledge that there's plenty of countries who don't hold our imperialist past in high regard and see the Royal family as a central tenet of what happened. 

They should not have been arrested. 

But I do think "freedom of speech" is a very double edged sword because you then can't complain if others choose to express their opposing opinion. Too often people think it's a freedom to say whatever, wherever and free of consequence. 

At a time like this with nothing to gain they're only likely to cause trouble. 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Alpha

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Surely that's the point of freedom of speech, the way its being discussed here. You're allowed to criticise Liz Truss, you're not going to be arrested for it. And you are allowed to dismiss the criticism as mysoginistic, nobody is going to arrest you for that either. And you're allowed to criticise people who say you're mysoginistic for criticising her, safe in the knowledge that you won't be arrested. But your local paper, your local gentlemen's club, your local comedy club, your employer and the owner of any private social media platform etc may choose to not give you access to share any or all of the above. And that's not affecting your freedom of speech. That doesn't actually exist. 

Well Piers Morgan was cancelled for criticising Meghan. You can be cancelled just for criticising people. 

[therealhantsram]

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well Piers Morgan was cancelled for criticising Meghan. You can be cancelled just for criticising people. 

No Piers Morgan - by his own account - quit.  

[Highgate]

2 minutes ago, Alpha said:

They should not have been arrested. 

But I do think "freedom of speech" is a very double edged sword because you then can't complain if others choose to express their opposing opinion. Too often people think it's a freedom to say whatever, wherever and free of consequence. 

At a time like this with nothing to gain they're only likely to cause trouble. 

And yet, it also seems like the most reasonable time for that protest.  The very moment when a new monarch is proclaimed head of an entire nation, without consensus, merely by virtue of their birthright.

It's hardly surprising that some people will point out that they don't agree with being considered 'subjects' of other human beings.  I don't think this an example of people saying whatever...it seems like a rational protest at an appropriate time.  And as you say, they should not have been arrested if that's all they did. 

[GboroRam]

19 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well Piers Morgan was cancelled for criticising Meghan. You can be cancelled just for criticising people. 

But Piers is free to have whatever opinions he likes. It doesn't mean he has a right to a TV platform to share it though. 

Quit, cancelled, whatever. He wasn't arrested for saying it. He still has his freedom. Freedom of speech without sanction from the authorities. 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

No Piers Morgan - by his own account - quit.  

I think he was told to apologise or be sacked. So he quit. 
 

I don’t really get what Gboro is saying .. if I get called misogynistic just because I say something rude about Truss , or racist if I say something rude about Meghan then I am going to feel less free to say what I think . 

 

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

But Piers is free to have whatever opinions he likes. It doesn't mean he has a right to a TV platform to share it though. 

Quit, cancelled, whatever. He wasn't arrested for saying it. He still has his freedom. Freedom of speech without sanction from the authorities. 

I just think we have very different idea of what freedom of speech actually means. 
 

it’s a principle not a law . and It isn’t absolute .. you can say what you want but only provided it doesn’t unduly impinge on someone else’s liberty.

Can you really fell free if you are cancelled , banned or unreasonably insulted just for criticising someone ? 

[GboroRam]

11 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think he was told to apologise or be sacked. So he quit. 
 

I don’t really get what Gboro is saying .. if I get called misogynistic just because I say something rude about Truss , or racist if I say something rude about Meghan then I am going to feel less free to say what I think . 

 

You are free to say it, but not free from the consequences. Unless it's hate speech, the government and police won't get involved. 

[GboroRam]

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I just think we have very different idea of what freedom of speech actually means. 
 

it’s a principle not a law . and It isn’t absolute .. you can say what you want but only provided it doesn’t unduly impinge on someone else’s liberty.

Can you really fell free if you are cancelled , banned or unreasonably insulted just for criticising someone ? 

Nobody owes you a platform to voice your opinions. Just because you are free to say it doesn't mean someone is obliged to indulge you, and the public aren't obliged to listen. 

I'm sure that GMB or whoever was his show took a calculated approach and figured there was more negatives than positives. When your producers tell you to apologise and you refuse, it's probably more about power politics than freedom of speech. But I presume a decision was made that he needed to apologise, but he wouldn't. 

He's free to find another platform, which is what he's done, and he already has dozens of happy viewers. 

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You are free to say it, but not free from the consequences. Unless it's hate speech, the government and police won't get involved. 

And as I have said it isn’t free speech if there is cost to you of saying it. Ie adverse consequences. 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

I don't understand...was that all they did, hold up that banner?  Surely they weren't arrested for just that?

According to Nation.Cymru, nobody was arrested in Cardiff as the photo may seem to imply. There was only one person arrested and that was for breach of the peace. She was holding up a banner with “fxxx imperialism. Abolish monarchy” written on it. The offensive word probably didn’t help her case and I strongly suspect that whilst she was arrested she will be released without charge.

I guess whilst the individual has to right to her views the offensive language, combined with the context in which it was displayed, constituted a breach of the peace.

 

[GboroRam]

23 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And as I have said it isn’t free speech if there is cost to you of saying it. Ie adverse consequences. 

That makes no sense. We are all private individuals. Nobody can tell us how to feel or react to someone's views. However we elect a government, who have the executive (police) to enforce. We have a right to expect to limit their impact on our lives if we aren't in breach of the law. But nobody else can be expected to follow any expectations regarding freedom of speech of others. I'm free to not go to see Lawrence Fox speak if I don't like what he says. That's the cost to him, the potential adverse consequence. 

But he won't be arrested, just potentially left with nobody willing to give him a platform. 

[i-Ram]

Did @Davidstart this thread to give @GboroRamsomething to do?

[PistoldPete]

15 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

That makes no sense. We are all private individuals. Nobody can tell us how to feel or react to someone's views. However we elect a government, who have the executive (police) to enforce. We have a right to expect to limit their impact on our lives if we aren't in breach of the law. But nobody else can be expected to follow any expectations regarding freedom of speech of others. I'm free to not go to see Lawrence Fox speak if I don't like what he says. That's the cost to him, the potential adverse consequence. 

But he won't be arrested, just potentially left with nobody willing to give him a platform. 

Gboro you make an arbitrary distinction between sanctions under criminal law and civil law. There are plenty of laws  that people can break under civil law if they say the  wrong thing. 
 

anyway I am ducking out now it’s clear we see things differently on this. 

[GboroRam]

7 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Gboro you make an arbitrary distinction between sanctions under criminal law and civil law. There are plenty of laws  that people can break under civil law if they say the  wrong thing. 
 

anyway I am ducking out now it’s clear we see things differently on this. 

I don't think people know what they mean by freedom of speech. 

To be fair, it's a USA thing really. And it's a constitutional promise that the government will not limit your right to say what you want. 

The UK has no such thing, but people seem to be expecting much more anyway. 

It seems most people who complain about others being cancelled, citing their freedom of speech, are really complaining that someone said something they broadly agree with, but later that person found some people took exception to what they said. 

If Rawling upsets trans activists, if Bernard Manning jokes offend, if Piers Moron criticises a royal - they weren't compelled by the state to say or not say something. 

You have no right to use someone's platform if they don't want you to. But you can go out into the street and voice your opinions. It doesn't stop you having to answer for your views though. 

[ariotofmyown]

14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Gboro you make an arbitrary distinction between sanctions under criminal law and civil law. There are plenty of laws  that people can break under civil law if they say the  wrong thing. 
 

anyway I am ducking out now it’s clear we see things differently on this. 

Thank goodness having sexual relations with trafficked women is only a civil offence, or else the King's bro might be doing time. I know there was a huge amount he had to pay to the victim, just pure luck he happened to be loaded.