Freedom of speech

[Compo 10,328]

I'm following a thread in a faceache group. It is discussing terrorism past and present. Naturally, views are being expressed that some find controversial and disagreeable. Some group members are calling for Admin to "pull" the thread but if we try to ban people's feelings and expression then we are heading towards a totalitarian state. Think of Stalin, Hitler and Mugabe - do we really want to go down that road in order to silence anyone who expresses views that may be controversial? People come to Britain because it is a free country and quite rightly, too. Some are fleeing such oppression as the banning of free speech and thought; to ban it here would be to turn us into another state that people are fleeing here to escape from.

[catfan 14,793]

The snowflakes don.t like anyone to have free speech except when it suits them !!

 

[Brew 5,417]

Compo you have all the free speech you want....... providing the PC brigade agree with you.

Free speech is something of a misnomer, there is no such thing and never has been. Throughout history freedom to do anything has always been controlled by those who think they know better.

Milton wrote a well known treatise on the matter of free speech back in the time of the civil war. Basically what he said was that the country and society should be governed by discussion and reasoning. 

Meaning full dialogue... ring any bells?

[colly0410 1,181]

Bloke stopped me & said "do you believe in free speech?" I said "yes I do!" He said "can I use your mobile phone then?" .... I'll get me coat.... 

[Brew 5,417]

Heh, W.C Fields...

[DJ360 6,730]

Under present UK law, I believe that 'free speech' is only really limited by the restriction of 'Hate Speech', 'Incitement to violence' etc., and of course Libel, Slander and Defamation laws. I think there are also restrictions based on 'National Security' (D Notices etc.)

 

Personally, I am far more concerned about the way that certain sections of the Press can seemingly get away with complete fabrication with impunity. 

 

Classic example.  When that £$%^  from Derby burned his own children to death. the DM stated unequivocally that there were 'thousands more benefit claimants like him'. Clearly designed to increase the suspicion of anyone on benefits.  They never retracted.

 

Also, the BBC, which is extremely selective about what it chooses to focus on in the news, what it chooses to ignore and the issues of national importance it fails to pursue.  Small example.  Amongst all of the 'personality' politics, no mention of the fact that the former boss of Carillion, which failed taking a lot of Govt money with it, has been appointed to a top job with Balfour Beatty working on the HS2 project.  More big money jobs for the boys. More rewards for failure. No mention on the main news.

 

I'm no special fan of Sir Cliff, but the BBC showing aerial shots of his home whilst police searched it, despite no charges ever being laid .. was a massive abuse of free speech and of 'Press Rights'.

 

I think a little perspective might be in order.

 

 

[Brew 5,417]

What they said is factually true, there are thousands on benefit so they have nothing to retract. Were they pandering to the great unwashed? - definitely.

 

Never been a fan of Cliff but the Beeb were well out of order.

 

There are so many in top jobs who just move from top job to top job that it's hardly news any more. 

 

A little perspective may well be in order Col, but who's perspective?

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[DJ360 6,730]

Brew,

The DM knew exactly what message they were sending.  This happened at the height of the wave of Tory driven 'moral panic' about 'Benefit Scroungers'.  There are certainly thousands on benefits.  That should be a source of shame for Govts, that so many need to claim.  But, there are not 'thousands' who would sink so low as to risk their own kids to further profit from the benefits system and it has been repeatedly shown that Benefit Fraud is very low overall and much lower than Tax fraud.  So 'Benefit Scrounging' is, in a real sense 'Fake News'.  It's not really an issue, yet even as it is getting harder for genuine people to claim what they are entitled to under the Universal Credit disaster, many people are more 'wound up' by this perception, than they are by the real theft and misappropriation going on under their noses via 'Outsourcing' of the NHS etc. It is a typical example of a very bad person being re-fashioned in order that his mud sticks to innocent and genuine benefit recipients and at the same time it is also socially divisive 'scapegoating', and also a diversion from the reality of what Govt. are up to.

 

What I meant by a 'bit of perspective', was that many are crying 'foul' where there is no foul, and ignoring the many other ways in which political debate is restricted, or manipulated.  The Tommy Robinson case is a classic.  Lots of his far right supporters trying to imply that he has been 'silenced', when all that really happened was he was gaoled for breaking the law and he pleaded guilty. He was not gaoled for expressing his views.

 

There is a battle going on at the moment, between the far right, often American led 'populist' movement, propagated by the likes of Trump, Bannon, Alex Jones et.al., who want to be able to preach their hatred and bile unhindered, and those who believe that there must be limits on what can be said.  I think we have it pretty much right here in terms of what an individual can say. You can query or object to anything, so long as you do not use that process to spread hatred or incite violence, or to spread deliberate lies about another.

 

Our press is mostly a disgrace.

 

Our BBC is too ready to be a mouthpiece for our Govt.rather than really challenging it and questioning it.  Typical news item "Govt. today said A", "Leader of the Opposition said B" " Govt insisted A".  So, government gets to state its view, opposition gets to state a different view but Govt. gets to insist that it is right.  No analysis, no debate, no evidence  no nothing.  Just two bites for Govt, to one bite for opposition.  It's very poor journalism indeed.

 

 

Re: 'Quis custodiet etc..'  That of course is the key question, which has recently come under increased challenge and scrutiny due to the power of the internet.  Because the internet is available to pretty much anyone, it is encouraging a sort of digital version of 'mob rule'.  Sadly, 'mob rule' always leads to increased repression, either by the mob, or by those who emerge victorious after the mob are overcome.  See 'Russian Revolution', 'Cultural Revolution', 'French Revolution', etc., etc... and of course 'Donald Trump'.

 

On which, I believe I've posted this little gem before:

 

Quote

"Trump is the perfect candidate for the online age. He gives a voice and a face to the ignorant, the people who've been empowered by the internet to believe having an opinion is the equal of having an informed opinion, the wilfully, defiantly stupid who in their complete unawareness of their short-comings pour scorn on the educated for trying to oppress them, the trolls and the bullies and the thick-headed prejudiced who've been liberated by their new-found anonymous communication freedoms to say things that previous generations would have found disgusting and unacceptable. This isn't a political battle, it's a social battle and it should show the reflective classes that a line has been drawn and that they shouldn't give an inch out of 'elitist' guilt."

Mark Chadbourn

 

  Not sure I'm on board with 'elitist guilt', but otherwise I think Chadbourn nails it.

 

Col

 

[catfan 14,793]

We have & always had free speech in this country. BUT nowadays only if the PC brigade allow it.

[DJ360 6,730]

I'm interested to know who the PC brigade are Mike?

 

What have they stopped you from saying?

 

[catfan 14,793]

You know as well as I do Col, the unelected/elected busy bodies who have nothing better to do but dream stupid things up. Perhaps with your uni degree in politics you most likely know but won't say for reasons best known to yourself.

If I knew then I would be the first to name & shame em.

Regarding free speech, if I wanted to stand in the middle of Bulwell Market & preach the word to the great unwashed then I am free to do so, free speech is still alive in Bulwell. whether anyone took any notice is a different matter !

[benjamin1945 16,160]

It certainly is still alive in Bulwell Catfan..........heard a great exchange out back at 'Wethers' only this morning......bloke slightly 'drunk' was celebrating his 52nd birthday which he had began last night,,chap asked him ''why you still boozing if your birthday was yesterday''?,,he replied cos i'm a daft Bestwood lad'' told him i'm a Bestwood lad and not as Daft.as you''.......''course you are,you just don't know it yet'' then added ''i say what i like and like what i say''......then laughed and offered to buy me a drink.......now thats free speech........lol

[Brew 5,417]

Col, you and I are not so far apart but occasionally I do like to play devils advocate.

The tax fraud you mention I take to mean the tax paid by big corporations, we have done that and it's legal, no fraud involved.

On the other hand, tax fraud by your local tradesman et al giving discounts for 'cash in hand' amounts to between 100 and 200 billion pounds of untaxed revenue. That’s rather more than the projected 15 billion pounds (on which the appropriate tax is paid) by companies supplying services to the NHS.

 I hate outsourcing of the NHS but when non-clinical and clinical staff are almost 1:1 something is wrong. No enterprise can survive when the number of chiefs equals the number of Indians

Benefit scroungers, those who could work but choose not to are, as you say, fewer than the poplar perception would have it so yes, it is less than tax fraud as a loss to the treasury.

Is the rumpus about the tax paid by corporations I mentioned previously not a case of crying foul where there is none?

I don’t believe our press is ‘mostly’ a disgrace, some are but most?

Catfan thinks he can stand anywhere and say what he likes and you agree with him. I think you are both wrong. Preach the gospel, fine no problem, but anything negative hinting at Islam, immigrants, homosexuality etc. will see a crowd of protesters shouting you down or a warning from the authorities about causing a breach of the peace.

The latest buzzwords to control what we think and say are, ‘cultural appropriation’. In this instance a female celeb wearing her hair in cornrows. What next – not allowed to eat curry or sweet and sour chicken? Oh and you can’t wear pyjamas without permission.

The BBC is, I think, on balance, reasonable in its presentation of events though yes, like every other organisation there are influences that have an effect. If you want to see real bias in reporting watch Fox news.

 

In the matter of mob rule and the repression of the people I rather think that as a socialist you have shot yourself in the foot. All the revolutions you named are socialist and some of histories worst ever examples of crushing individual freedom.

Donald Trump is an awful person but his popularity in the US is purely down to the fact he has the ignorance to pander to what many people think and feel. I would like to say his philosophy would not gain traction here but with a clown like Boris waiting in the wings I have my doubts.

Chadbourn said it better.

 

[catfan 14,793]

I think the vast majority of the public are afraid to say what the want to.......publicly !

So much for democracy.

[Deepdene Boy 642]

Whilst I may not agree and in some cases I would vehemently disagree with some peoples' opinions, I would back to the hilt their right to express them. (And then tell them they were wrong)

[Brew 5,417]

It's a nice pipe dream, defending free speech but in reality how many of us would go to the barricades? I for one would not stand up in a crowd and defend the right of free speech for Antifa to  the BNP or vice-a-versa -  though I do believe they should have the right to present their point of view (with Cols proviso's).

 

Catfan is right, people are afraid to say what they think and that's the whole point I'm making, free speech is restricted by making people fear the consequences of speaking out.

 

If you read Article 10 of the 1998 Human rights Act it gives freedom of expression but there so many get out clauses as to make it worthless.

[DJ360 6,730]

I just wrote, then lost, a long reply.  Some here might be relieved..

 

However, what I'd really like is for  someone.. anyone.. to provide me with two things:

 

1. Evidence of any shadowy organisation which constitutes, or is behind, the 'P.C' Brigade'.

2. Anything which does not break the laws of Libel, Slander, Incitement etc., that anyone here would like to say, but feels they can't say.  PM me if you like, I won't tell anyone what you said.

 

Just because some idiotic 'P.C.Rule' is reported in the papers doesn't mean it really exists.  Even if it does exist, if it is not supported in Law, it need not restrain your speech.

 

For what it's worth, I just see 'PC', as a range of views.  Some are really only about using 'polite' terms rather than potentially derogatory ones. Others are just plain barmy and should be resisted.

 

Col

[FLY2 10,108]

You probably exceeded your allotted time Col. It's happened to me before.

[DJ360 6,730]

Possible Fly..  Or maybe the 'P.C. Brigade'  censored me....  :)

 

 

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

Ian this kind of thing can be very divisive & should be discouraged?

[catfan 14,793]

Funnily enough I was asked to give a talk at a local church women's guild a few months ago & decided to talk about homosexuality in the Britain today.

I honestly thought I would never be asked to speak there again but afterwards having a cup of tea many old dears were pleased what I had said because they were afraid to, all enjoying my talk ! Been invited back too !

[philmayfield 6,134]

Is homosexuality permitted in Bulwell? There must be bye-law surely.

[catfan 14,793]

Not many thankfully.

[philmayfield 6,134]

I can get the gist of your talk to the ladies then!

[catfan 14,793]

Trouble is Phil, they are a dying breed. Nowadays society encourages all sorts of sexual perversion, kids with 2 dads or 2 mums, soon schools will be full of kids from these homes with very few kids from a heterosexual normal family type home.