Freedom of speech

[Noiseless_exit]

this is a place to debate what was said in general pap about losing our freedom with the new laws about terrorism.
to see the topic click here (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1202319#post1202319)
please give your veiws and opinions, and feel free to correct me with any information i have got incorret.
Noiseless_Exit.

[esquilax]

If we could just get a bit of perspetive here, it is only going to be an offence to glorify terrorism. As far as I'm concerned, that is an abuse of the right to free speech.

And as to some of the things said about it on the website....aren't people aware that common sense will be used for this? Someone wrote that we'll no longer be allowed to celebrate Bonfire Night as it is a glorification of terrorism. That's rubbish.

[PatatoeMassacre]

That really reminds me of the hunt on "communists".

[tehmoogles]

This is a good law, in my opinion. It will probably only be used for the right purpose.

A year or so ago I saw in the papers, nearly every day, a speech inciting terror by some radical Muslim cleric. They couldn't do ANYTHING to throw the bastard out. Now they can.

[Nicodemus]

They let the Ku Klux Klan hold rallies and marches in the States. They're monitored by police, and most rational people don't agree with what they're saying. There have been times when they have led to violence. But they are still allowed to do it because it is protected under the first amendment.

Just because something has the potential to incite violence or may make some people uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be censored to make everyone feel better. It's the action of terrorism that kills. It's the action that affects people. Words are just words. If you don't like what's being said, don't listen. If people are openly talking about terrorism, you better believe that they're being watched anyway.

And esquilax, how is it an abuse of free speech? All through history there have been people who have been saying things that almost no one agrees with. Since when has it become okay to call it an abuse of free speech just because it makes a lot of people uncomfortable?

[Scrumpopolis]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
That sums up pretty well how I feel about this.

[Nicodemus]

There is no security to be gained from this, though. All you're doing is shutting people up. To gain security, you must stop people from carrying out acts of terrorism, not talking about them.

Do you seriously believe that making it illegal to glorify terrorism is going to make one iota of difference in terrorism itself? I don't.

In fact, I believe just the opposite is true. Let's give them just one more reason to hate the "oppressive infadels." Brilliant.

[Scrumpopolis]

I agree with you, but the government's justification for this will be national security.

[Nicodemus]

Which I don't buy. Not even for a second.

This seems like a government trying to save face to me. They have been totally and completely ineffectual in dealing with actual acts of terrorism, so they're doing the only thing they can think of to make the general population believe that they're actually accomplishing something when in reality all they're doing is grasping at straws.

[Noiseless_exit]

on the point that it is not an abuse of free speech, i agree fully. Would you rather be in a world where we have free speech, and can say what we want, or would you rather live where we cant express our opinions, where we are oppressed to only think what they want us to think, or at least not to say anything other than that.
Another example is galeleo, when he made the discovery that teh earth was not the center of everything, and that the earth orbitted the sun, he was put in jail. Now i knwo what your thinking, but he didnt do anything wrong..thats different. Well its not, because when he said that, it challenged the idea that god made the earth and made it the center of everything blah blah blah. Which offended many people, it seemed absolutely unreasonable to say such a thing.
Now would you want to be locked away for saying something, even if it was true, for example "the terrorists showed great commitment and strength to prove their ideas, in the last attack".
As other people said, before now, we couldnt do anything with people whomsat there and preached how we should attack the government etc. Well that is a lie, and you know it, as to plan a terrorist attack/ try to provoke one/be involved in anyway (with the terrorsit side) with a terrorist activity, was illegal. So we could easily send people out who said things like "we should bomb parliment on monday" etc..and we did if you ever watched/read the news, a man was deported for that very thing.
i hope that made sence

I agree with you, but the government's justification for this will be national security.

just like the ID cards, why do we need them "security against terrorism".
Well, when you think about it, what is happening is that they are letting the terrorists do what the government said they are trying to prevent, by taking away our freedoms such as freedom of speech, forcing people to have ID crads, allowing people to be done for pretty much anything. Now what we must go back to is the basic idea of a "terrorist".
a "terrorist" is somebody that makes peoples purposefully in terror. Which to me is what the goverment is doing. For example, by constantly telling us about the threats and the evils of terrorism, they end up doing the terrorist jobs, by making some words/ phrases illegal, we now feel like we have to watch everything we do or say...this is not a helthy enviroment and is as said before, doing the terrorists jobs. Also, id say it would be more healthy/better to have the occasional bomb or murder, then have the bombs and murders from the "terrorists" and from the government.
(quote marks for terrorists, to show what the government would call terrorists, as i have said that the government themselves are terrorists...just trying to make it easier to understand.)
I hope that too made sence

Noiseless_Exit

[esquilax]

And esquilax, how is it an abuse of free speech? All through history there have been people who have been saying things that almost no one agrees with. Since when has it become okay to call it an abuse of free speech just because it makes a lot of people uncomfortable?

What I meant was that inciting hate and violence against other people is just that. Obviously, you can't prevent them from saying things like that, but they should realise that being lucky enough to have a right to free speech carries some responsibilty with it.

[Roxsie]

You have the right to free speech,
As long as your not dumb enough to actually try it

sums up my whole opinion on governments and their approach to free speech.

[Nicodemus]

So George Bush doesn't incite hate and violence every time he stands at that podium and talks about how we're "winning" the "war on terrorism" and how "we" will ensure "freedom" for "all people" (whether they want us to or not)?

It's a double-standard I'm seeing here, and that's not right. If we take advantage of freedom of speech, we can't deny others the same right.

[doctor_fruitbat]

I recall (at least) one of the July 7 bombers was a seemingly normal man, and many of his colleagues were shocked that he could be capable of terrorism. Would this law have caught him? No it would not. And how DID we catch the bombers? Through the solid intelligence work that has served us so well for years.

[Roxsie]

Except when russian defectors end up dying in front of Mi5's headquarters

[maxxy_p]

You all seem to be pretty much agreeing here, but I'd like to reinforce a point.

You cannot run from problems like this. You cannot hide behind this ineffectual law because all it does is aggravate. For example, we allow the BNP to exist, and most people have the sense to see that they're fuckers. But if we banned the BNP:

firstly people would see them as a greater threat to our safety (and hence be more afraid)
secondly we would blur the boundaries between freedom-loving democracy and the prison nation the BNP would set up
thirdly the BNP would become even more fanatical against the rest of society.

You cannot ever make this kind of law, because everyone loses.

[Meadow]

Oh boy. I'll say one thing, and it's a quote from Marcus Brigstock:
'The rule of freedom of speech walks hand in hand with the rule of "don't be a dick".'

[Nicodemus]

Yeah. "You can say whatever you want as long as you're not a dick about it."

:rolleyes:

[renatzu]

Oh boy. I'll say one thing, and it's a quote from Marcus Brigstock:
'The rule of freedom of speech walks hand in hand with the rule of "don't be a dick".'
Maybe if you want to be polite, but the 1st amendment does not have a subclause saying "all speech must conform to the norms of polite society".

I can say I believe all the Jews should be killed* and no decent person may agree with it, but it's my right to say it. The idea of outlawing not nice speech, while it may sound pleasent, is still censorship and a step towards totalitarian rule.

[Discodoris]

I find these laws extraordinary - hypocritical for a start, the antithesis of democracy, a retrograde step with regard to civilisation and so authoritarian as to be a real threat to society. It strikes me as a hate campaign of its own. I'm not a great fan of George W. Bush or Tony Blair, but they are democratically elected leaders - what worries me is that neither are picking up the lessons from the recent past. Denying the freedom of speech to the Irish republicans in the seventies led to a much worse escalation of violence - the peace process really began when everyone was allowed to start expressing their views and negotiating! Likewise, the election of Hammas in Palestine is not to everyone's taste, but things in that area seem to have cooled to a certain extent (unless they've just stopped reporting incidents).

I think that it is being done for the best of intentions, but you can't keep a country safe by dictating to it, it has to be done by mutual agreement and empowerment. That doesn't mean that incitement should become legal - as far as I am aware, there are sufficient laws on that to deal with this type of problem, those that urge violence can be dealt with. But expressing criticism of a culture from a different perspective is healthy, we can all learn to grow. Hate breeds hate, as shown by previous racial tensions and religious conflicts. And in my opinion, suppressing free speech in this way is a hateful action.

And that applies much more widely - anyone that acts to ban something because they don't like it, even though it doesn't harm them, is acting in a hateful manner. If you advocate the withdrawal of rights, you lose the moral ground to have your own rights protected - this is the real invidious problem of this type of law!

[Meadow]

Maybe if you want to be polite, but the 1st amendment does not have a subclause saying "all speech must conform to the norms of polite society".

I can say I believe all the Jews should be killed* and no decent person may agree with it, but it's my right to say it. The idea of outlawing not nice speech, while it may sound pleasent, is still censorship and a step towards totalitarian rule.

Alright, let's look at it this way. Freedom of Speech is NOT the right to encourage people to blow other people up. I agree that the glorification of terrorism laws are bollocks, but the laws targeting radical clerics like Abu Hamza I do agree with. If someone actively tells someone to blow up a train, that's not freedom of speech, that is conspiracy to take part in terrorism.

[maxxy_p]

So you get them done for conspiracy to take part in terrorism. You can do that already. But the right to free speech should remain intact.

[Meadow]

So you get them done for conspiracy to take part in terrorism. You can do that already. But the right to free speech should remain intact.

What right to free speech? Britain has no written law that says you can say what you want. It doesn't have any written laws at all, but that's irrelevant.

Free speech does NOT cover telling someone to break the law. It does not cover lyign in court or any of the other crimes which some forumites here try to justify under 'free speech'. It is the right to criticise your government openly. Without that right, we begin becoming a police state, and if we are not careful, these terrorism laws could start the ball rolling. However, they have not begun to do so yet.

[maxxy_p]

What right to free speech? Britain has no written law that says you can say what you want. It doesn't have any written laws at all, but that's irrelevant.It doesn't have a law saying you can't say what you want. In the absence of other laws prohibiting you from speaking freely (such as one we're talking about), you can say what you want.

Free speech does NOT cover telling someone to break the law. It does not cover lyign in court or any of the other crimes which some forumites here try to justify under 'free speech'. It is the right to criticise your government openly. Without that right, we begin becoming a police state, and if we are not careful, these terrorism laws could start the ball rolling. However, they have not begun to do so yet.Existing laws can have you for lying in special situations, such as under oath in court, where lying could give someone a jail sentence or let them off it. Free speech is the right to express your opinion on something, not to land someone in jail. And the government here is saying that if you have a certain opinion on terrorism, you cannot express yourself.

[Nicodemus]

Uh, not even in the American Constitution, where we are guaranteed the right to free speech, it does not qualify that right with any resitrictions. It doesn't say, "The right to free speech in order to criticize the government and nothing else." In fact, for the sake of argument, here is what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about what freedom of speech does cover. And as maxxy_p said, in those instances where we have found the people having free speech leads DIRECTLY to the perpetration of a crime, or to the false aquittal or conviction of someone in court, there have been laws passed for just those occasions. Consipiracy is a crime, perjury is a crime, but speaking about terrorism without actively planning an act of it is NOT a crime.

[Ozzylator]

Spot the difference time!

http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/USA-W2.gif

http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Edinburgh/uk-map.jpg

Everything Meadow said applied to Britain. You can tell, it's the bit where he said "In Britain..."

As well you'd know if you read his post.

[Nicodemus]

Are you kidding me right now?

In fact, for the sake of argument, here is what it says:

I KNOW he was talking about Britain. I've been at this forum for almost two years, and I think I've picked up by now that this board is chiefly British. He was saying that it's not written in law in Britain, and I was saying that EVEN here, where it IS written, there's no restriction on it.

I was offering input from a different prespective, which sometimes helps people who are on the fence about something make up their mind.

Do please stop being so condescending with your little pictures, and do please try to read MY post before you get that kind of attitude here in debates, where it's not needed.

[Ozzylator]

I fail.

[Meadow]

It doesn't have a law saying you can't say what you want. In the absence of other laws prohibiting you from speaking freely (such as one we're talking about), you can say what you want.

Existing laws can have you for lying in special situations, such as under oath in court, where lying could give someone a jail sentence or let them off it. Free speech is the right to express your opinion on something, not to land someone in jail. And the government here is saying that if you have a certain opinion on terrorism, you cannot express yourself.

Oh yes, absolutely. It stinks all over. Not sure why you're telling me this, as I'm one of the biggest opponents of imposing police state-like restrictions on our lives in the name of 'counter terrorism'.

ID cards, for example. The government thinks that if it shouts 'ID CARDS WILL COMBAT TERRORISM' enough times and loud enough, we will believe it and stop asking for proof. Sorry Tony, not all of us are imbeciles.