Freedom of Speech

[Haruspex]

The issue of freedom of speech does crop up every now and then. Discussions involving religion, ethnicity and race, especially, tend to be fairly heated. There are always people with strong opinions and their opinions do often conflict. There are things people just 'can't say'. Some opinions, if voiced, will invite the disapproval of one's peers, as they are perceived, by certain groups within society, as opinions that ought not to be voiced, or perhaps ought not exist. Now, this shitstorm of normativity is exactly what has been filling me with profound hatred.

I continuously wonder, just why is it that we 'can't' (misrepresented ought not), say certain things? Surely, if we ought not say specific stuff, there is this eerie obligation not to say, for instance, that the church (in a broader sense) is a congregation of greedy old f*ckers who've seen more naked boys in their lives than sunsets. Or generally to challenge any of the putative truths that society decided following the instinctive beliefs of a number of antediluvian (in the sense of 'ancient') desert nomads, or by their equally dogmatic descendants.

In short, the question is 'Why is there anything one should not say? What evidence or proof is available?' and 'How can liberal western countries purport to be protecting freedom of speech even though they allow violent groups a power akin to the 'heckler's veto' whereby violent groups, in the current context, deny persons the right to freedom of speech and expression through intimidation?' and 'How did this invade serious discussions where the violence of certain groups is invoked in their own favour and defence against freedom of speech and persons exercising or wishing to exercise freedom of speech?

 

[Nuala]

The issue of freedom of speech does crop up every now and then. Discussions involving religion, ethnicity and race, especially, tend to be fairly heated. There are always people with strong opinions and their opinions do often conflict. There are things people just 'can't say'. Some opinions, if voiced, will invite the disapproval of one's peers, as they are perceived, by certain groups within society, as opinions that ought not to be voiced, or perhaps ought not exist. Now, this shitstorm of normativity is exactly what has been filling me with profound hatred.
I continuously wonder, just why is it that we 'can't' (misrepresented ought not), say certain things? Surely, if we ought not say specific stuff, there is this eerie obligation not to say, for instance, that the church (in a broader sense) is a congregation of greedy old f*ckers who've seen more naked boys in their lives than sunsets. Or generally to challenge any of the putative truths that society decided following the instinctive beliefs of a number of antediluvian (in the sense of 'ancient') desert nomads, or by their equally dogmatic descendants.
In short, the question is 'Why is there anything one should not say? What evidence or proof is available?' and 'How can liberal western countries purport to be protecting freedom of speech even though they allow violent groups a power akin to the 'heckler's veto' whereby violent groups, in the current context, deny persons the right to freedom of speech and expression through intimidation?' and 'How did this invade serious discussions where the violence of certain groups is invoked in their own favour and defence against freedom of speech and persons exercising or wishing to exercise freedom of speech?

There shouldn't be anything one should not say. It's best to get such matters out in the open, and discuss them vigorously, so that we may perhaps find a solution to the problems that ail us.

It's not just Western countries that give voice to hate groups. The thing we have to remember is that those against the hate that certain groups voice have an equal chance to voice such opinions, whereas in the past, finding yourself in a position of opposing the popular, or loudest voice in the room often lead to physical repercussions, such as death, exile, and so forth.

Protesters in that picture you've posted are a hate group, and they're suggesting a barbaric means to silence opposition to certain truths they find undeniable. I might be so inclined to say they've had too much of the Kool-Aid. Yet, they do indeed have a right to voice their opinion, no matter how insane it is. We take away one group's voice, and our voice can go as swiftly as theirs.

 

[Haruspex]

There shouldn't be anything one should not say. It's best to get such matters out in the open, and discuss them vigorously, so that we may perhaps find a solution to the problems that ail us.
It's not just Western countries that give voice to hate groups. The thing we have to remember is that those against the hate that certain groups voice have an equal chance to voice such opinions, whereas in the past, finding yourself in a position of opposing the popular, or loudest voice in the room often lead to physical repercussions, such as death, exile, and so forth.
Protesters in that picture you've posted are a hate group, and they're suggesting a barbaric means to silence opposition to certain truths they find undeniable. I might be so inclined to say they've had too much of the Kool-Aid. Yet, they do indeed have a right to voice their opinion, no matter how insane it is. We take away one group's voice, and our voice can go as swiftly as theirs.

I am not arguing that they do not have a right, under most western legislation, to free speech, merely that they do not have a right to intimidate groups that they are opposed to. They want to tell people that they want to behead them? Alright, that's fine, nothing wrong with that from a free speech perspective, however, from the perspective of security, there is no reason not to round them up and stick them in prison, as they have demonstrated criminal intent in a fairly apparent fashion. To sum it up, it's like 'Right, you people have the right to speak freely. We won't stop you, but once you've exercised your right, if an inference can be drawn that you may have criminal intent, you will be treated like anyone demonstrating such intentions.'

The other point is more or less specific to Islam. People defending Islam, on this forum as well, from time to time, mount a most deformed argument:

Now, according to them people should treat Islam with utmost respect as, if they do so the Muslim adherents participating in such actions will not have to resort to intimidation and violence so as to prevent them from exercising their right under the legislation of most western countries.

It is distorted because the idea is that you want to use your right to free speech and are met with violence and intimidation, and the group behind it claims that if you don't want to be met with intimidation and a promise of a bleak fate, you should refrain from using your right under the law. If you exercise your right to free speech, they will use intimidation to corrode it away and thus your right is defeated. If you wish to avoid intimidation and the negation of your right, they say, you ought to refrain from using the right in the first place and thus your right under the law is defeated at the outset.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

At what point does the right to free speech include the right to incite violence?

I have difficulty envisioning such a demonstration ending peacefully in America. I consider myself a broad-minded individual, but if I saw people carrying such signs on the street, my kneejerk reaction would be to shout some insult at "Islam." Just because such messages as displayed in those signs offend my own sense of decency, civilization, and tolerance.

I could easily see such a demonstration ending in mob violence here, as the demonstrators reacted to my insults (and I wouldn't be the only outraged American shouting insults). Authorities (and the public) don't have to tolerate civil disorder and mob violence in the name of free speech.

A special consideration here that doesn't apply to most of Europe is that we Americans have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In my state I don't even need a permit to carry a handgun in my belt or coat pocket; so long as I abide by the law, it's none of government's business that I do so.

In fact, you can be pretty sure that a fair number of people you see on the street here DO have a gun on them. I've never seen such a demonstration here, so perhaps that knowledge lends a certain civilizing effect on free speech.

 

[Hezam]

This thread is targeting Islam as always.

 

[Mycernius]

This thread is targeting Islam as always.

Not really, but they are more vocal when it comes to anything said against them.

On the subject of freedom of speech. In the UK we have recently had a murderer kill himself after a standoff with the police. Facebook then had a page dedicated to this man. Many people complained about this page, as it offended a great many people and they wanted the government ot intervene. now whilst I found the thought of such a page repugnant we shouldn't automatically think that just because someone has a different point of view to us that we should use the gobernment to remove the offending site/group. If we did that then freedom of speech would be a total illusion and what we should believe would be fed to us by those in charge. Just look at North Korea.
Yes it does mean that we get such rubbish as Stormfront and Westboro' Baptist Church, but we are at least comforted by the lack of people who join them, or just troll them.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Hezam, it's an unfortunate fact that in these times only Muslims seem to be calling for death to those who "insult" their religion.

Muslims may find such insults offensive, but most of us in the West find it offensive to threaten death to those who say something Muslims don't like. It offends our whole belief system in individual and human rights.

Can you understand why we'd be even more nervous when those calling for death are members of the same religious group as the terrorists who commit mass murder in the name of Islam? When I see that photo, I can't help but wonder if some of those masked people are terrorists themselves. Do they plan to carry out their threats?

We can't silence them because of our own commitment to free speech. The best we can do is respond with free speech of our own, by mocking or criticizing such people.

 

[Pandora]

You say that violent groups who exercise their freedom of speech are in turn arrested for criminal intent with a threat, thus this violates their right to say what they want and in a sense creates the 'illusion' of the freedom of speech? In the U.S., when the bill of rights was added to the declaration of independence, Freedom of Speech was indeed one of the unalienable rights. If a violent person/group is arrested for criminal intent due to a threat on an indiviual or group's life or well-being, their freedom of speech is not taken away. They are imprisoned for the crime commited when they exercised their right to free speech, yet they can still speak their mind, even from holding/jail/prison. Their determination in their belief is what will determine how persistent they will be in expressing their thoughts and no separate being, government, or organization can take that away if they do not desire to let go of it. Part of the guaranteed rights that Americans have is to realize that the majority of them cannot be denied or taken away if the individual has a strong will and is prepared to fight for what they are trying to express.

 

[Hezam]

Call for killing is totally wrong,they may call for arresting or preventing who insult Islam,this is what i believe in.
But Freedom of speech became an excuse for the idiots who like to insult everything in this planet !
Such idiots must be shut up to keep a good society like Japan.
Freedom of speech,Democracy,Human rights,..etc etc,All these are excuses in the west to attack Islam and Muslims,I'm sick of this bull$hit,everyday the western govs break them and we muct not speak,so where is the freedom of $hit ?
Hope you understand that.

 

[Pandora]

Freedom lies not in what we are allowed or permitted to do, but in what we believe we can do.

 

[Nuala]

Part of the guaranteed rights that Americans have is to realize that the majority of them cannot be denied or taken away if the individual has a strong will and is prepared to fight for what they are trying to express.

I agree with this completely, Pandora. This is a fantastic addition to the thread.

 

[Haruspex]

Call for killing is totally wrong,they may call for arresting or preventing who insult Islam,this is what i believe in.

They may, actually, according to traditional concept of freedom of speech, call for killing, or truly whatever it is that they wish.

But Freedom of speech became an excuse for the idiots who like to insult everything in this planet !

Excuse? It is their right, under freedom of speech, to insult whatever it is that they may wish to insult. Such use of freedom of speech is envisaged, as it is an integral aspect of freedom in a broader sense.

Such idiots must be shut up to keep a good society like Japan.

I don't want to live in a society like Japan, and I'm quite convinced that almost all nationals of the Member States of the European Union would readily agree with me. We don't want some laughable Bureau of Shutting Up telling us what we can say or what we may insult. We'll insult everything and we will in return tolerate the insults thrown at us. If you cannot withstand having your innermost, deeply-held beliefs insulted, you're plainly weak.

Freedom of speech,Democracy,Human rights,..etc etc,All these are excuses in the west to attack Islam and Muslims,I'm sick of this bull$hit,everyday the western govs break them and we muct not speak,so where is the freedom of $hit ?
Hope you understand that.

And these very same rights allow Muslims to be represented in western countries. If we didn't live in democracy and have human rights and civil liberties like freedom of speech, the state could be rounding up Muslims who have become a mild annoyance to the state because of the views they voice that conflict with those of the establishment.

You say that violent groups who exercise their freedom of speech are in turn arrested for criminal intent with a threat, thus this violates their right to say what they want and in a sense creates the 'illusion' of the freedom of speech?

No it doesn't. Freedom of speech is exactly what the words imply: the right to speak freely.

In the U.S., when the bill of rights was added to the declaration of independence, Freedom of Speech was indeed one of the unalienable rights. If a violent person/group is arrested for criminal intent due to a threat on an indiviual or group's life or well-being, their freedom of speech is not taken away.

Firstly, let us differentiate between claims and invitations.

There is a great difference between saying that 'immaculate conception is nonsense' and saying 'kill Melvin!'

The first example concerns a claim as to the actual facts of the natural world and is thus, in many regards, including the aspect of security, fairly unproblematic.

The second involves not a statement of fact, but an order to kill Melvin. It hardly has any substance to protect, but fine, even then, it comes under freedom of speech, so let them utter it.

But say, is Melvin, not, under the laws of his country, entitled to protection? To be protected from being killed? In any sensible state where people know where their interests lie, the right not to be killed and the right not to be subjected to unlawful punishment will prevail over any ancillary rights that may or may not be associated with the traditional meaning of free speech.

Or are you implying that we should wait until Melvin is killed and imprison the perpetrators after?

They are imprisoned for the crime commited when they exercised their right to free speech, yet they can still speak their mind, even from holding/jail/prison. Their determination in their belief is what will determine how persistent they will be in expressing their thoughts and no separate being, government, or organization can take that away if they do not desire to let go of it. Part of the guaranteed rights that Americans have is to realize that the majority of them cannot be denied or taken away if the individual has a strong will and is prepared to fight for what they are trying to express.

Hindering freedom to express information = issue of freedom of speech.
Convicting persons for crimes committed whilst exercising their right to freedom of speech without hindrances = issue of criminal law.

Freedom lies not in what we are allowed or permitted to do, but in what we believe we can do.

Freedom is a lack of restriction. As regards issues where no restrictions are imposed upon us, we are free.

 

[Pandora]

Or are you implying that we should wait until Melvin is killed and imprison the perpetrators after?

I respect your point of view, although I don't think I said what I was trying to in the least confusing way. I apologize if my wording made you think that. From the perspective of the laws (not my personal perspective): One of the other unalienable rights we have as humans is also the right to life. If one being should infringe on the rights of another, their own rights can be nullified if necessary and they can be imprisoned or punished by law for that offense. However, from my perspective, although people are guaranteed their rights, the beauty of having them is what we do with them and how we fight for them. Everyone uses them for different purposes and beliefs and regardless of whether people feel that individual is 'good' or 'evil' (although I hate these stereotypes, many people use them), all people deserve to fight for what they believe in, because no matter how cruel or caring it is, no matter if I agree with it or despise it, it means something to them, and that alone makes it worth fighting for.

Hindering freedom to express information = issue of freedom of speech.
Convicting persons for crimes committed whilst exercising their right to freedom of speech without hindrances = issue of criminal law.

Although their statement itself may have been a form of crime, they still exercised their freedom of speech because they made the statement to begin with. No one can go back in time and undo it. Therefore, they did get to express their voice, but since that happened to infringe on the rights of others, it would also be seen as a crime and action would be taken. However, I see that you are saying once they've been punished by law (or otherwise), that hinders their right to continue using their freedom of speech freely wherever and whenever they'd like. What I was trying to say was that freedom of speech lies within oneself and that if the individual wants to express their message, they will find a way any way they can.

Freedom is a lack of restriction. As regards issues where no restrictions are imposed upon us, we are free.

Perhaps for you. I believe that freedom is like beauty: it is in the eye of the beholder. For me, freedom is my ability to believe that anything is possible if one has the will and the faith in theirself to make it happen. For anyone else, freedom means to them what they want it to. That in itself, makes freedom ambiguous in it's own way.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Yet, they do indeed have a right to voice their opinion, no matter how insane it is. We take away one group's voice, and our voice can go as swiftly as theirs.

That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. I don't see how telling one group they aren't allowed to say, "Behead those who insult Islam" will lead to another group not being allowed to say, "Scientology is stupid". That seems like a hell of a leap. It's almost like saying that banning snuff videos will lead to film being outlawed.

I am not arguing that they do not have a right, under most western legislation, to free speech, merely that they do not have a right to intimidate groups that they are opposed to. They want to tell people that they want to behead them? Alright, that's fine, nothing wrong with that from a free speech perspective, however, from the perspective of security, there is no reason not to round them up and stick them in prison, as they have demonstrated criminal intent in a fairly apparent fashion.

I agree, lock 'em up ;-). However, at the moment I think the police find it difficult to understand who they should and shouldn't arrest. They let the clearly violent statements in your photo slide, but they arrest a bunch of kids for calling Scientology a cult. I think that's just a lack of training and experience on the part of the police, and hopefully they will improve in time, with the help of the CPS.

A special consideration here that doesn't apply to most of Europe is that we Americans have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In my state I don't even need a permit to carry a handgun in my belt or coat pocket; so long as I abide by the law, it's none of government's business that I do so.

I would be terrified to leave the house if it was legal for people to carry guns. If I thought my neighbours had guns I'd lock myself behind bulletproof glass. Thank goodness the government of the UK sees fit to impose such restrictions on its citizens.

In fact, you can be pretty sure that a fair number of people you see on the street here DO have a gun on them. I've never seen such a demonstration here, so perhaps that knowledge lends a certain civilizing effect on free speech.

Although I think our hate speech laws here go too far sometimes, I think they're a much more appropriate deterrent than the threat of vigilante justice ☝

On the subject of freedom of speech. In the UK we have recently had a murderer kill himself after a standoff with the police. Facebook then had a page dedicated to this man. Many people complained about this page, as it offended a great many people and they wanted the government ot intervene. now whilst I found the thought of such a page repugnant we shouldn't automatically think that just because someone has a different point of view to us that we should use the gobernment to remove the offending site/group. If we did that then freedom of speech would be a total illusion and what we should believe would be fed to us by those in charge. Just look at North Korea.

Facebook is paranoid about this crap. I belonged to a group defending the atheist-turned-deist philosopher Anthony Flew from claims that he had become a Christian. It was deleted twice after complaints from Christian groups, with no explanation given to the admin.

However, it depends what the group was actually saying. If they were saying "Let's go shoot people like Raoul Moat did", then it's absolutely correct that it should either change its rationale or be removed. The same goes for groups in society. The BNP are a good example. They basically had to change their policies or face a ban.

We can't silence them because of our own commitment to free speech. The best we can do is respond with free speech of our own, by mocking or criticizing such people.

Nope, the best we can do is lock them up for inciting violence.

If a violent person/group is arrested for criminal intent due to a threat on an indiviual or group's life or well-being, their freedom of speech is not taken away. They are imprisoned for the crime commited when they exercised their right to free speech, yet they can still speak their mind, even from holding/jail/prison.

I understand your point, but I think that their freedom of speech is really protected in name only. If a few people are arrested for carrying a banner saying "Behead those who insult Islam", people are going to interpret that as a ban on making that statement, which for all practical purposes it is. Even in prison, they are probably going to face further sanctions if they continue to express that opinion.

And so what? I don't see what the big problem is if people think they're not allowed to go around telling others to kill people.

Freedom is a lack of restriction. As regards issues where no restrictions are imposed upon us, we are free.

Under that definition there's an argument that we're never free. Can we ever truly say that there are absolutely no restrictions imposed upon us?

 

[Ather]

I don't think the definition "Freedom of Speech" is complete yet.. Where does it start or end ? If we just stick to claim "everyone should be able to say what they think" we can't achieve anything. If a christian protests against Islam in front of a mosque, he will be threaten or beaten, just as a Muslim doing so in front of a church.. There is no other way, because if you say something that majority don't like in an aggressive way, majority will punish you. That is why there are laws, so the rights of the minority can be protected, so any idea can be expressed, anything can be said.. But the problem doesn't end here, just because we can say whatever we want, does it mean we can insult anything ?

Here starts not law, but ethics; i'm an agnostic and in my opinion religions are useless codes from ancient eras, but does it give me the right to insult a Muslim, Christian etc.just because i think religion is bad? What would you do about it if that was done to you ? I have the right to express any idea i have, but they have the right to believe in any religion, or code they want. If you look from another perspective, freedom of speech can also mean that people can hate speech all they want, call death for someone as a group, which will cause that person to feel insecure about his life and maybe one jerk will go suicide bomb on that person.. In that case, do you think only the person doing the act of violance is criminal ?

 

[witnessingpresence]

I think freedom of speech needs to be unrestricted