Freedom of speech versus harassment

[Delicate]

I was out with some friends tonight and one of them said how tomorrow there’s going to be an anti Muslim march all the way through town and she was scared to go to work. She told me that the police had said if anyone gets attacked it’s basically out of their hands. I’m not sure if I believe that part. Anyway despite the fact that I believe in the right to freedom of speech I do think it’s disgusting and a part of me thinks it shouldn’t be allowed then the other part thinks everyone has a right to express their views despite my personal feelings of disgust.

So I looked it up and yeah they’re due to do a march tomorrow. I agree that people should have the right to say what they think, partly so half the people can realise how ridiculous it is, then it’s on them. But I looked into the group that’s set to march and found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VttOmZm2zPU this is said to be related as it was less than a week ago. When did the lines of freedom of speech and harassment get blurred? And I’d only heard about this the day before, I have family buried at this cemetery yet I’d not heard a thing of it. Why is there not more awareness? And why is a political party allowed to practice this? Because of freedom of speech? Since when is vandalising a gravestone speech?

They make a point of being anti extremist which I agree with in any belief system but to "keep England white" isn't anti extremism it's racism. And they get people's attention by making it feel patriotic but it's not, "British National" or "English Defence League" But I think anyone who lives in England has every right to feel patriotic about England. I'm as tolorant as possible of racists because fighting fire with fire tends to get yourself burned but this is disgusting. Russell Brand did a show quite a few years ago called "naziboy" talking to the leader of the young BNP Mark Collette, he was as patient as possible and let the guy get his views acrross and the guy presented himself as a complete moron. I was gonna link it but it might be offensive to some people, it's on youtube though. I look at people like that and think, people actually respect this person enough to be a leader?

When does personal freedom become a problem?

[pyramidsong]

I agree with you. "Keep England White" sounds pretty damn extremist to me! Like you, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of assembly but I also think the lawmakers and enforcers find ways to turn a blind eye and reinforce their own prejudices. Anti-Muslim march? Ugh. Thing is, violent fundamentalists *are* scary but they're not representative of most Muslims and they're no more scary than white supremacists, IMHO. The media-fed fear-mongering is revolting and it encourages the harrassment to which you refer. Having said that, I don't really know what the answer is. Can't legislate against people being narrow-minded dicks, unforch. And that goes both ways- fundies, supremacists and all the nutcases in between. Complex issue.

[VIncymon]

That's the problem. People need to understand that a society without rules, is a society doomed to failure.

Complete, unrestrained freedom is the equivalent of living in the jungle.
Any person that claims to be civilized must be willing to give up some freedom.

Many times when I hear people argue about freedom of speech in the USA I wonder if they acknowledge what i've said above.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by VIncymon

That's the problem. People need to understand that a society without rules, is a society doomed to failure.

Complete, unrestrained freedom is the equivalent of living in the jungle.
Any person that claims to be civilized must be willing to give up some freedom.

I'm civilized and I'm not willing to give an inch. Freedom is far too important an issue to compromise upon. Give an inch and next they'll want a mile.

Originally Posted by VIncymon

Many times when I hear people argue about freedom of speech in the USA I wonder if they acknowledge what i've said above.

I live in the USA. Welcome to the jungle, where we have the First Amendment and virtually anything short of explicit death threats is Constitutionally protected.

I really don't understand why other nations have such a problem with the concept of virtually unlimited free speech. When white supremacists, for example, march you'll see things like a dozen guys in white robes surrounded by 200 police in full riot gear to make sure those dozen Klansmen don't get torn apart by the 1,000 people protesting against them. I must say that a dozen loudmouth bigots don't look too frightening when they require an entire police force to keep them from being killed.

There are rules in society. One of those rules is you don't physically attack somebody even if what they say makes you want to beat their face in. Civilized people can generally manage to follow such rules.

Now knocking over or smashing gravestones and such is vandalism. That's not free speech and has nothing to do with free speech.

[pyramidsong]

"There are rules in society. One of those rules is you don't physically attack somebody even if what they say makes you want to beat their face in. Civilized people can generally manage to follow such rules."

^This.

"Now knocking over or smashing gravestones and such is vandalism. That's not free speech and has nothing to do with free speech."

^ And this.

A perfect example, if you'll indulge my referring to your good self, Ultra Shy, is that I often disagree with your more political posts. However, you and I have equal rights under the laws of democracy and I would defend your right to free speech until I am blue in the face, and I imagine you would do the same for me. That's what democracy IS.

[VIncymon]

Come on ultra-shy , everybody compramises. How can you say you are not willing to give an inch. I don't believe for a second that you are that cruel a person. Driving on the high-way is a compramise. I think you took what I said too literally.

When parents have to give up their free time to take care of their children, that is compramise. When someone is hosting a talk-show and some guy with completely opposite views calls and rants for 5 minutes... it is a compramise on the hosts part, to let the person speak, no matter how hateful that person's rant may be.

Saying you don't give an inch, would literally mean that if you are ( a child ) saying mean things about your teacher, and the teacher walks by, you would continue talking without even lowering your voice.


I am all for free speech, I defend it just as much as you. I just wish people sometimes used more discretion when speaking.

If people were in a habit of using their discretion, then we wouldn't be in this "oh its not politically correct to say x" - tangle that we are now.

Right now, everyone has to walk on eggshells with what they say now, lest they be called a bigot for some reason or the other. I'm sure you don't like that any more than I do.

[pyramidsong]

^Also a good point. Diplomacy is a good skill to have, and it is possible to be diplomatic and considerate without sacrificing one's beliefs.

[Tangent]

On the not giving an inch point:

Do you regret not having the freedom to buy and sell others as slaves? Because in a totally free society, there are no laws restricting a flourishing slave-trade...perhaps this is the unintentional axiom in George Orwell's "freedom is slavery" concept from Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

On giving the racists free speech:

It took me a long time to reach a decision on the whole verbal abuse/free speech debate, but I am now largely convinced that free-speech must be maintained.

So let the nazis march, to deny them this right would be to espouse the tools of their fascist ideology which we would claim to be opposing, and thus we would defeat our own object.

[Mr. Frostie]

We have so many weird laws in the U.S. (don't know about the UK), you can't walk outside of your house without doing something illegal. Maybe the cops can find some trivial thing to arrest them for if they can't arrest them for being racist douches and probable homicidal sociopaths. In the case of stuff like white supremacy demonstrations and Fred Phelps funeral picketing, this is one area I don't have a problem with the cops getting a bit creative with their interpretation of the law.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by VIncymon

I am all for free speech, I defend it just as much as you. I just wish people sometimes used more discretion when speaking.

If people were in a habit of using their discretion, then we wouldn't be in this "oh its not politically correct to say x" - tangle that we are now.

Right now, everyone has to walk on eggshells with what they say now, lest they be called a bigot for some reason or the other. I'm sure you don't like that any more than I do.

I use discretion. There are lots of things I say privately that I don't post on SAS because I'd be banned for life if I said those same things on this board.

When not encumbered by the rules of SAS or social norms that force one to hold their tongue in public, I say whatever I please and some people would not find my comments very pleasing.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Do you regret not having the freedom to buy and sell others as slaves? Because in a totally free society, there are no laws restricting a flourishing slave-trade...

I bolded the part that is a contradiction. A FREE society with SLAVERY? Now that's an interesting concept. If you have a free society then you don't have slavery. If you have slavery then you don't have a free society.

I could really use somebody to maintain & fix up the house. What skills do you have and how much could I buy you for? And do you come with a money-back guarantee should I not be satisfied with your performance?

[VIncymon]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

I use discretion. There are lots of things I say privately that I don't post on SAS because I'd be banned for life if I said those same things on this board.

When not encumbered by the rules of SAS or social norms that force one to hold their tongue in public, I say whatever I please and some people would not find my comments very pleasing.

Exactly. You've just proved my point. There are things you may want to say, that you do not say, for the sake of maintaining the peace.

Some people however, behave as if, the only way they can feel good about "freedom of speech" is by saying the most controversial/ bigotted things possible, in the most public of forums, to have the greatest effect of disrespect.

[Delicate]

Let me just say I'm not moronic I realise that vandalism isn't the same as freedom of speech but it's the source from which both come that bothers me. In that it's the same group of people who take part in the vandalism and harassment and they share the same views and motives. My point is that I don't expect anything to change but I find it frustrating. Obviously you can't change how someone thinks and I wouldn't want to but the closed mindedness and the ignorance is mind numbing.

I also agree with the right to protest, but when it gets to a point where the police are warding off the protestors rather than dealing with the issue, not the freedom of speech but the harassment. They're "dealing with" the protestors rather than the violence and vandalism and intolorance I see that as diluting the problem. So I tend to think let them express themselves fully then it can be obvious how warped certain views are, because you can't change the way someone thinks by holding up a picket sign. If there's a political party who's only means of a legitimate argument is fear leading to hatred and with that failing, violence. Something's gone awry and all I can say is it's a shame. It's a shame that fear breeds respect for such people and it's a shame that I can go into an office and vote for these people, no ties, name to name, to run my community. And because the connections are more available and people are scared they're more easily influenced. In a sense I do believe that political campaigning has something to do with brain washing, I don't watch the video campaigns.

Originally Posted by Tangent

Do you regret not having the freedom to buy and sell others as slaves? Because in a totally free society, there are no laws restricting a flourishing slave-trade...

But freedom for everyone would contradict that, if one person is enslaved by another the slave has no freedom so how is that a "totally free" society? I guess complete freedom is a dream that doesn't make sense.

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

I bolded the part that is a contradiction. A FREE society with SLAVERY? Now that's an interesting concept. If you have a free society then you don't have slavery. If you have slavery then you don't have a free society.

I could really use somebody to maintain & fix up the house. What skills do you have and how much could I buy you for? And do you come with a money-back guarantee should I not be satisfied with your performance?

But then, if there is a law against slavery, how is a society free? Mr. John Doe wants to go and buy a slave-child to knit sweaters for him, but then evil big government comes and tells him he can't. What right does the state have to interfere in Mr. Doe's purchasing choices? I imagine if Mr. Doe did go and buy a slave-child, government agents would be kicking his door down and storming his house - fully armed, in a most Orwellian fashion.

We let businesses use slave-children to make clothing for us, so why can't we do it directly? You defend the former freedom, but not the latter.

Ergo, I do not think we should necessarily defend any freedom, freedom of speech or otherwise, solely on the grounds that "freedom is good" - because there are obviously cases where it is not - indeed the very concept is, as you pointed out above, a complete paradox, a contradiction.

[Dempsey]

Freedom does not exist under a government. The freedom we have is relative. It's like being on a short-leash compared to being on a long-leash. None of it is freedom. Freedom is a buzz-word thrown around by politicians, it means nothing. That's why you can't come to a proper conclusion.

[Zephyr]

What you guys are forgetting here, and what no one has mentioned, is that your freedom is limited by everyone else's freedom. You have freedom, until that freedom curtails someone else's.

That's why you're getting all in a knot over the freedom and slavery thing. It's not that freedom is a buzzword and means nothing, it's that there are natural limits to the concept if you want to set up a free society.

My freedom ends where yours begins.

[somethinginthewind]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

My freedom ends where yours begins.

^This.

[pyramidsong]

I agree, Zephyr. I think, too, that this discussion illustrates perfectly the very concepts in question. If everyone were willing to meet others halfway and be a little mindful, considerate and respectful of differences we wouldn't need boundaries and laws on freedom. Trouble is, people have different definitions of what freedom entails. I feel there is a vast difference between having opposing viewpoints but accepting that and saying "I have my opinion and will shout it from the rooftops and not give an inch."

Sure, it isn't right to legislate opinion and tell people what they can and can't say, but I feel we also benefit from tact and diplomacy and an awareness that morality is subjective. We all hold controversial views at times. Personally, I feel factory farming is abhorrent and violent and feel we should all be striving towards a vegan lifestyle BUT I have the awareness that in reality that is not going to happen, nor do I think that omnivores are evil. Now, my first instinct/desire when discussing this issue is to shout people down and not give an inch but it's unconstructive and disrespectful. I feel there are a lot of people who use their "right to free speech" as an excuse to be aggressive jerks. We live in a society wher people are all too aware of their rights but ignore their responsibilities.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

What you guys are forgetting here, and what no one has mentioned, is that your freedom is limited by everyone else's freedom. You have freedom, until that freedom curtails someone else's.

That's why you're getting all in a knot over the freedom and slavery thing. It's not that freedom is a buzzword and means nothing, it's that there are natural limits to the concept if you want to set up a free society.

My freedom ends where yours begins.

I glad you get it. That's pretty much sums up what I'd say to Tangent who has his hypothetical John Doe buying slave-kids to knit his sweaters.

[Delicate]

I'm not any specific religion but in terms of society I agree with the wiccan rule "An it harm none do what ye will". To hold cerain views and act on them is harmful to others.