why has freedom of speech become the home to absolute turds

[likesfish]

Milo hopkins etc etc hide behind freedom of speech.
and to air views that are unpopular.
Unfortunately they just appear to be sprouting unpleasant drivel. rather than a dissenting voice.
They complain that freedom of speech is being damaged but its their fault goading your opponents with trash talk is hardly going to make a principle look good is it?

 

[twentythreedom]

It always has been though. That's how it works.

 

[likesfish]

surely there's people on the right who can say stuff thats unpopular with out being drooling racist fuckwits?

 

[twentythreedom]

surely there's people on the right who can say stuff thats unpopular with out being drooling racist fuckwits?

They must be out there somewhere

 

[Pickman's model]

surely there's people on the right who can say stuff thats unpopular with out being drooling racist fuckwits?

Yeh. Surely. But where are they?

 

[stavros]

Do people want to be appalled? Perhaps they want to hear commentators, with the authority (sic) of a public voice, who differ in some way from what they perceive as the consensus.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I though freedom of speech was by definition freedom to criticise the government not freedom to say anything you like?

 

[Pac man]

Freedom of Expression/liberty is a "qualified right" Article 10, (so can be restricted).

"Article 10 gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.

This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations)."
Article 10 Freedom of expression

Early cases such as Zeta jones and OK magazine sought to define some of its scope, ie when it interefered with privacy for instance. And in Naimo campbell where the press published about her cocaine use even though it was argued it breached her privacy, it was held that if you portray yourself in a positive light to the public (paint a certain image) then such negative press was not a breach of privacy and was fundamental to free speech/expression.

Recently Freedom of Expression has conflicted with the Article 9 Freedom of Thought Belief and Religion,(Charlie Hebdo) for instance, boundries have been pushed and the likes of Milo dance a very fine line.

I read an interesting piece in the guardian some time ago. A Right To Offend?
A right to offend?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There isn’t freedom of speech though. There’s plenty of stuff you can say that can get you shunned at one level or your collar felt at another.
There’ll never be freedom of speech and any claims to it leads to self censorship anyway that we’re seeing play out in identity politics circles.

 

[Pac man]

There isn’t freedom of speech though.

Freedom of speech falls under freedom of expression Article 10 (as explained above) This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations).Its a qualified right which means it can be restricted (read the Article 10 link for when this applies).

eta ill post it for you:
Limitations

Article 10 is a qualified right and as such the right to freedom of expression may be limited. Article 10 provides that the exercise of this freedom “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities” may be limited as long as the limitation:

• is prescribed by law;
• is necessary and proportionate; and
• pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
  • the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
  • the prevention of disorder or crime;
  • the protection of health or morals;
  • the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
  • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
  • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Freedom of speech falls under freedom of expression Article 10 (as explained above) This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations).Its a qualified right which means it can be restricted (read the Article 10 link for when this applies).

eta ill post it for you:
Limitations

Article 10 is a qualified right and as such the right to freedom of expression may be limited. Article 10 provides that the exercise of this freedom “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities” may be limited as long as the limitation:

• is prescribed by law;
• is necessary and proportionate; and
• pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
  • the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
  • the prevention of disorder or crime;
  • the protection of health or morals;
  • the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
  • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
  • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

And what about my other points?

 

[NoXion]

There isn’t freedom of speech though. There’s plenty of stuff you can say that can get you shunned at one level or your collar felt at another.
There’ll never be freedom of speech and any claims to it leads to self censorship anyway that we’re seeing play out in identity politics circles.

Freedom is either completely absolute or non-existent?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Freedom is either completely absolute or non-existent?

No I’m saying it always leads to policing.

 

[Pac man]

Im not quite sure what your getting at? you said theres no such thing as freedom of speech, ive listed the limitations, proportionality is important and any interference has to be neccessary and proportionate in a democrtatic society. Protection of public saftey is wide/scopey and the protection of health and morals could be anything, and of course the prevention of crime, again scopey. But freedom of expression has more room for manouver than ever before since the HRA, its become more aggressive though because we have a wider platform and its harder to control.

eta sorry im not familiar with what is meant by identity politics, can you explain?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Im not quite sure what your getting at? you said theres no such thing as freedom of speech, ive listed the limitations, proportionality is important and any interference has to be neccessary and proportionate in a democrtatic society. Protection of public saftey is wide/scopey and the protection of health and morals could be anything, and of course the prevention of crime, again scopey. But freedom of expression has more room for manouver than ever before since the HRA, its become more aggressive though because we have a wider platform and its harder to control.

eta sorry im not familiar with what is meant by identity politics, can you explain?

The point I was trying to make is that those who usually call for complete freeedom of speech, be they liberals or libertarians, usually end up self policing speech themselves anyway so I can’t envisage speech ever being truly free.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Of course fascists argue for freedom of speech but they mean freedom to say things liberals police but would end up banning books they disagree with if in power.

 

[Pac man]

The point I was trying to make is that those who usually call for complete freeedom of speech, be they liberals or libertarians, usually end up self policing speech themselves anyway so I can’t envisage speech ever being truly free.

Do you think speech "should" be truly free? Freedom of expression/speech carries with it duties and responsibilities, we as a society have an obligation towards each other, not to harm or be abusive. Complete unfettered free speech would have fatal consequences, its bad enough having to listen or read comments by the likes of Robinson, Hopkins, Farage, Morgan and Milo et al. They are clever, snidey fuckers who dance a deliberate fine line for kicks/attention and controversy. Given free raine, we would be like rabid animals in a world with no morals..i dread to think.

 

[tim]

I though freedom of speech was by definition freedom to criticise the government not freedom to say anything you like?

No, it is my freedom to point out the stupidity of your post. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, in reality all states and organisations curtail it to some degree or other. In the UK we have laws against racism and hate speech, for example.

 

[likesfish]

The USA approach is almost no limits and has made things worse see pizzagate shooting 'Pizzagate' shooter sentenced to 4 years in prison - CNNPolitics:

and their obsession with fema and death camps to an extent the US military had to go on record to explain a military exercise wasn't a prelude to marital law and they weren't turning abandoned wall marts into death camps

 

[kabbes]

Freedom of Expression/liberty is a "qualified right" Article 10, (so can be restricted).

"Article 10 gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.

This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations)."
Article 10 Freedom of expression

Early cases such as Zeta jones and OK magazine sought to define some of its scope, ie when it interefered with privacy for instance. And in Naimo campbell where the press published about her cocaine use even though it was argued it breached her privacy, it was held that if you portray yourself in a positive light to the public (paint a certain image) then such negative press was not a breach of privacy and was fundamental to free speech/expression.

Recently Freedom of Expression has conflicted with the Article 9 Freedom of Thought Belief and Religion,(Charlie Hebdo) for instance, boundries have been pushed and the likes of Milo dance a very fine line.

I read an interesting piece in the guardian some time ago. A Right To Offend?
A right to offend?

The right to express political opinions, organise, demonstrate and impart information and ideas... just so long as they don’t involve independence for Catalonia.

 

[Pickman's model]

The USA approach is almost no limits and has made things worse see pizzagate shooting 'Pizzagate' shooter sentenced to 4 years in prison - CNNPolitics:

and their obsession with fema and death camps to an extent the US military had to go on record to explain a military exercise wasn't a prelude to marital law and they weren't turning abandoned wall marts into death camps

Have you heard of garden plot?

 

[NoXion]

No I’m saying it always leads to policing.

I think most people recognise that though? You know the old saw, "don't cry 'fire' in a theatre".

 

[butchersapron]

Recently Freedom of Expression has conflicted with the Article 9 Freedom of Thought Belief and Religion,(Charlie Hebdo) for instance, boundries have been pushed and the likes of Milo dance a very fine line.

What do you mean here about charlie hebdo and clashing with article 9?

 

[Pac man]

Expression has to be proportionate (like Charlie Hebdo) was. We have the right to ridicule, even offend but religious extremists take offense to this kind of ridicule. Atheism is also a "religious belief" and has equal protection under Artiicle 9. The issue is that expression has responsibilities and some argue that the kind of expression by Hebdo, breached those responsibilities and caused harm to Muhammad and therfore should be curtailed, as it was an assault on the rights and reputation of others (Muhammad) and also an "assault" on health and morals (religious morals).

 

[krink]

Have you heard of garden plot?

I tried to dig around on that but it's well buried, hopefully something will turnip.

 

[newbie]

The right to express political opinions, organise, demonstrate and impart information and ideas... just so long as they don’t involve independence for Catalonia.

I don't know enough to have a detailed discussion about the matter, but surely the individuals concerned have been free to express their views throughout their lives? What's currently at question is the legality of their attempt to implement those opinions as (local) government policies.

 

[butchersapron]

Expression has to be proportionate (like Charlie Hebdo) was. We have the right to ridicule, even offend but religious extremists take offense to this kind of ridicule. Atheism is also a "religious belief" and has equal protection under Artiicle 9. The issue is that expression has responsibilities and some argue that the kind of expression by Hebdo, breached those responsibilities and caused harm to Muhammad and therfore should be curtailed, as it was an assault on the rights and reputation of others (Muhammad) and also an "assault" on health and morals (religious morals).

I still don't understand what you're saying. CH is a french publication and so is not subject to the HRA - either article 9 or any other article. There were no moves to block publication under any similar european laws or conventions either, so in what sense was there any substantial clash other than some people not liking what they published? There's no fundamental contradiction or anything in that example surely?

And does expression have to be proportionate?

 

[Pickman's model]

The USA approach is almost no limits and has made things worse see pizzagate shooting 'Pizzagate' shooter sentenced to 4 years in prison - CNNPolitics:

and their obsession with fema and death camps to an extent the US military had to go on record to explain a military exercise wasn't a prelude to marital law and they weren't turning abandoned wall marts into death camps

http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/DA-CivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1968.pdf
http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/ArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1978.pdf
http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/USArmyCivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1991.pdf
The Vulcan Report - PULSEWAVETRADING: Operation Garden Plot / CONPLAN 2502 (Civil Disturbance Operations)
http:// ww w.northc om.m il/ Portals/28/Documents/FOIA/Con%20Plan%203501-08%20DSCA.pdf

 

[kabbes]

I don't know enough to have a detailed discussion about the matter, but surely the individuals concerned have been free to express their views throughout their lives? What's currently at question is the legality of their attempt to implement those opinions as (local) government policies.

I'm also a bit clueless about it, but it does seem rather like the Catalan president has been arrested basically for asking the question and expressing his view that the result should be respected.

 

[Pac man]

I still don't understand what you're saying. CH is a french publication and so is not subject to the HRA - either article 9 or any other article. There were no moves to block publication under any similar european laws or conventions either, so in what sense was there any substantial clash other than some people not liking what they published?

And does expression have to be proportionate?

Off course France is subject to the Human Rights Act, the only differece with France is that they have a history/tradition (Lacitie) state secularism, which could be argued is, at times, at direct odds with freedom of expression restrictions under Article 10 but laid down in in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR .

Yes expression has to be proprotionate and so does any interference with it.