If one defines what we mean by "freedom of speech" there would-be less
chance that the debate is derailed by red herrings and misunderstandings.
"Freedom of speech" means the right to have an opinion and to express that
opinion.
However, other rights of the community, and of individuals, still pertain,
and "freedom of speech'' is not a licence to misbehave. So while it is
entirely correct for someone to be able to express his/her opinions on a
talk back show, or in any public forum, at an appropriate time, the concept
of freedom of speech does not include the right to infringe on the rights of
others.
Paraphrasing the examples already given, it would not be alright to loudly
proclaim one's belief's at 3:00 in the morning in a residential street, thus
infringing on the occupants' rights to a peaceful night's sleep - but on a
soap box in the town square during the day would be OK.
Similarly, comments or remarks designed to incite racial hatred and cause
danger to the public might be inappropriate depending on time and
circumstance. To call someone an "absolute dick head" is not a crime, but
his/her superiors would be upset with a police officer who said that to a
criminal holding a gun to his/her hostage's head: "you're an absolute dick
head - scum! - go on ... pull the trigger ... you haven't got the guts you
piece of low-life shit"
"freedom of speech" is a laudable concept but in practise must be tempered
with common sense and maturity, and above all, with other freedoms, and the
safety and best interests of the community, in mind.
Kind regards, James Elliott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris BONDE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [social] Freedom of speech
"Freedom of speech in it rudimentary form is the amiable right to do
or say what you like no matter what the circumstances."
Freedom of speech can be defined in many ways. The reality is that
liberal democracies such as the UK pride themselves in tolerance of
diverse views but still do not allow absolutely anything in terms of
anti-social behaviour in any context. Here are some examples
A person gets drunk and stands outside a police station at 3-00 am
using loud foul languge. They will probably be arrested for disturbing
the peace. Claiming free speech would be no serious defence.
A person goes round a neighbourhood shouting abuse through people's
letter boxes on a routine basis. Could be put under an anti-social
banning order which prevented them going into that neighbourhood.
A person says things deliberately designed to stir up racial hatred.
In the UK that is against the law.
Spamming is against the law. Is that not just exercising a right of
free speech in writing?
A person broadcasts and encourages people to become suicide bombers
and blow up innocent people on the London Underground. That too would
not be tolerated as just exercising freedom of speech
However anyone can set up a display outside the houses of parliament
and protest about any issue in a non-violent way.
Ultimately lines have to be drawn and the juudgement will be made
independently on the basis of whether the action is fundamentally
about freedom of speech or about simply being a nuisance to other
people.
With rights come responsibilities and being irresponsible can lead to
forfeit of rights as in people getting locked up, children being
excluded from school and clubs revoking someone's membership.
"We the people do not have the right to pass judgement on someone just
because that which they have said offends us."
Quite right, not just because what they say offends us but if what
they say is allied to invective and is designed primarily not to
inform but to irritate, incite, unfairly disturb etc then we do have
the right to put a stop to it and the law is invoked to do exactly
that.
If someone stands up in Washington saying they were planning to blow
up the Whitehouse, no-one would do anything about it?
A young person goes into a theatre in the middle of a performance and
starts shouting and swearing, they would not be removed?
There is a time and a place. No-one is preventing Chad from saying
whatever he wants to *if* he does it politely and quietly. He can
start his own web site if he wants, why I think ODF sucks and Bill
Gates is a sound chap. If its popular he will get a lot of hits and he
can be as anti-social on his own site as the law allows. The degree of
tolerance of anti-social behaviour does depend on the environment. I
guess it would be more tolerated here in social for example than on
the discuss list. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL
Well, them there now!!
What can we do to impress other's that our freedom of speech is ????? to
their's?
If we object to others, and they object to us??? HOW do we resolve the
differences?
Let us first start with, siblings, then school yard(residences etc),
college (frats
sororities), business etc.
YES, IMHO, you are asking the correct questions. However, I have learnt
that if the
questions are not in line with the ruling group, the power group, the
monied group,
you might as well try to piss up wind in as tornado. (I would have said in
a blizzard).
In a manner of speaking, maybe my freedom ends (to swing my arm, fist,
etc),
where your nose begins. If that is so, then we have to explain to others
that their
freedom ends where our nose begins.
Chris
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date:
20/02/2006
