What happened to free speech?

[Super Hans]

Did you just tell people to give an example of what you think?

 

No, I was asking OP to give an example of an occasion when somebody would say "What happened to free speech", just because you disagree with them.

 

I've only known people to say it when you tell them they can't/shouldn't say something.

[melthebell]

even worse when we lose the freedom of thought

[Cyclone]

No, I was asking OP to give an example of an occasion when somebody would say "What happened to free speech", just because you disagree with them.

 

I've only known people to say it when you tell them they can't/shouldn't say something.

 

Have a look at the recent thread about moving to Sheffield, or just use the search function and put in "free speech".

[Lockjaw]

I was thinking of starting a thread along the lines of this, also to include the subject of simple debate conduct and courtesy.

 

More often than not, the people guilty of crying "free speech!" will also be awful at debating/discussing, or simply have no intention of contributing anything meaningful to a thread.

 

Examples of this are;

- (as you said) when someone gives their opinion but expects that nobody should challenge it, even trying to claim it as a personal attack in some cases.

-Presenting their opinions as fact or as reasons for/against something, then getting annoyed when (again) they are challenged about this

-People being faced with a question which, if they answer honestly, will show their logic or point of argument to be flawed. In these cases, many a time they will avoid answering at all costs.

In response to a simple question I asked recently, the poster wriggled and attempted to deviate and outright lied, repeating this over many pages, all to avoid answering the question.

 

Some of the common responses when faced with a critical question are;

-a) "Your question is a strawman, therefore I won't answer it" (when the question obviously ISN'T a strawman and they are unable to explain why they think it is)

-b) "Your question isn't relavent" (when it obviously IS)

-c) "I've already answered, you just don't understand the answer/don't like the answer" (when they obviously HAVEN'T answered and are unable/refuse to show a post in which they have answered)

-d) "Your question is a loaded question" (when the question obviously ISN'T a loaded question and they are unable to explain why they think it is)

-e) Then there's the contortionist's answer, when they take part of your question but change it to mean a different question altogether, which they can answer without risking admission that they're argument is flawed (which doesn't answer the actual question at all, a very cowardly and underhand tactic)

-f) Then there's the old favourite, when someone is faced with reason and logic which they cannot counter against, they resort to attacking your post count

"6,000 posts, well I think we all know what that says about you then don't we!!"

Seriously? Do these people think myself and others will limp away, never to return from this near-fatal attack?

 

These people could bow out when it dawns on them that they have no argument left. They could just leave the thread and people would retain whatever respect they had for them. They could even try thinking about it and say "actually, I've been thinking about it and you might be right".

They don't though, they'll drag it out until the thread is closed or they get banned.

The only outcome is the total demise of any credibility they had prior to their shambolic show of cowardice, which will be forever be in black and white for all to see. Unless they do a LOT of deleting!

 

Hiya Roots.

 

All the above could be the characteristics of a troll, of course, but there's something more basic than that going on, I think.

 

I've observed, online and in real life, that the vast majority of people seem to have some basic, inbuilt, inability to accept they are wrong. My guess, though I haven't followed it through with any research, is that, like most of our behaviour, it has some sort of evolutionary advantage.

 

Possibly all the prehistoric self-doubters, circumspect weighers up of both sides of arguments and accepters that: actually, mate, you have a point there - I as wrong got eaten because they were mulling the relative strengths of each others' postulations while the blinkered I'm right, you're wrong bunch were running away. Or something.

 

I guess it's yet another case of delusion; where the person will do anything within their power to avoid facing up to the fact that, yup, they're wrong. This is most remarkable when faced with pure and simple facts. Ever shown someone, beyond all doubt, to be wrong only to be accused of being pedantic or a nit-picker?

 

Another similar point, more relevant to real life than online is the immediate consequence of being wrong. You've argued the toss with all and sundry over a period of time and then, in a moment of uncharacteristic self-awareness, you look up the proper meaning of, oh I dunno, let's say, "atheism". BANG! Oh no, I was wrong all the time ... and I reduced Doris in the office to tears over this ... Do I now go & humble myself to all the people I've already, I now realise, made myself look a dick to or do I convince myself the dictionary must be wrong ...? We are vastly complex yet remarkably simple creatures really.

[Cyclone]

+1 insightful

[janie48]

It's not something I've noticed tbh. Care to give examples?

 

What havn't you noticed? I've noticed that speech has to be restricted,and quite right too,otherwise we would have people saying anything and abusing the privlege of that position by making harmful remarks that may not only be regarded as offensive but could be potentially dangerous.

Also there is the question of media censorship,some earlier TV programmes such as "Till death do us part" from the 60s/70s would not be shown now as other repeat sitcoms are because it would be regarded as unpolicitically correct and offensive to other races, even though its aim was really having a dig at the bigoted right wing attitude of the lead character.

As the culture in society changes over the years,i expect we will see similar banns excercised in future years with many other issues,but at least we are not banned from criticising the goverment yet.

[truman]

What havn't you noticed? I've noticed that speech has to be restricted,and quite right too,otherwise we would have people saying anything and abusing the privlege of that position by making harmful remarks that may not only be regarded as offensive but could be potentially dangerous.

.

 

The fact that something said may be offensive to some isn't a good reason to ban it... .is it? I may find somethings you say offensive..should you be banned from saying them?

[Phanerothyme]

I think you mean "Whatever happened to free speach?"

[Cyclone]

What havn't you noticed? I've noticed that speech has to be restricted,and quite right too,otherwise we would have people saying anything and abusing the privlege of that position by making harmful remarks that may not only be regarded as offensive but could be potentially dangerous.

Also there is the question of media censorship,some earlier TV programmes such as "Till death do us part" from the 60s/70s would not be shown now as other repeat sitcoms are because it would be regarded as unpolicitically correct and offensive to other races, even though its aim was really having a dig at the bigoted right wing attitude of the lead character.

As the culture in society changes over the years,i expect we will see similar banns excercised in future years with many other issues,but at least we are not banned from criticising the goverment yet.

 

http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/179906/658877337/Till-Death-Us-Do-Part-Complete-1974-Series/ListingDetails.html?_%24ja=tsid:11518|cat:179906|prd:179906

 

The series that you mention doesn't appear to be in any way banned.

 

Speech hasn't been restricted in the UK until recently, it is now, with there being a law against inciting hatred...

There have been laws for a long time though aimed at making people think before they speak, ie the ability to sue after the fact for defamation and slander.

Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.

[janie48]

The fact that something said may be offensive to some isn't a good reason to ban it... .is it? I may find somethings you say offensive..should you be banned from saying them?

If i had power and influence on people and i was making hate-speech remarks that would be deemed to be seen as provoking disturbing reactions that may potentially lead to violence,then yes i should be banned from saying them.