What happened to free speech?

[truman]

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

 

That's different to being offensive...

[janie48]

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.

 

I stand corrected,but i doubt it will ever be shown on the BBC again.

 

Thanks for checking that i hope i don't get banned for showing this.I may have my beliefs but i've still got a sense of humour.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ

[nightrider]

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?

 

No, but sadly a lot of vocal people think you should be. Its not something the state needs to be involved in really.

[Cyclone]

There's a few other phrases that crop up along with the "free speech" one.

 

Troll, and more recently "you're belittling me".

 

Both used in reply to a valid argument against the position someone is taking, particularly (it seems) if you ask for evidence to back up an assertion they've made.

 

And of course they tend to go a bit further and chuck in a few insults, imply that you don't care about people, that you murder children maybe or that you've never actually left your house and have no experience to draw on.

[RootsBooster]

There's a few other phrases that crop up along with the "free speech" one.

 

Troll, and more recently "you're belittling me".

 

Both used in reply to a valid argument against the position someone is taking, particularly (it seems) if you ask for evidence to back up an assertion they've made.

 

And of course they tend to go a bit further and chuck in a few insults, imply that you don't care about people, that you murder children maybe or that you've never actually left your house and have no experience to draw on.

 

Yes, I've had a few of those. I was even called Satanic once and told that I should be shot dead.

[Cyclone]

Seems a bit harsh.

[quisquose]

Sorry RootsBooster, I knew I thought it I just didn't realise I wrote it down.

 

[lipschitz]

Don't mention free speech! If the government think it is free they will slap a tax on it very soon!

[quisquose]

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.

 

I don't know why you've replied to my post in this manner, since I was merely asking for clarification on Cyclone's question.

 

I tend to agree with most of Cyclone's input on this forum, and wanted to consider his post, but couldn't as it stood.

 

I read it to suggest that some people use "free speech" in a positive manner to defend their right to say something you disagree with, rather than in a negative manner to restrict other people to say things they disagree with.

 

I've not noticed the former, but plenty of the latter, hence my question. Which I think is what Super Hans was saying too.

 

But since you've prodded me for a response, I'll respond.

 

I agree with most of the replies given here thus far by Cyclone, Lockjaw, Rootsbooster and truman, and disagree strongly with the replies given by yourself with respect to the negative manner that "free speech" is used to restrict debate.

 

I am perfectly happy with the concept of libel and incitement, and that is all that is required. The concept of offence is wasted on me, and you can think me a dick if you want. What I find really offensive is that people use the excuse of offence to shut down debate, or to create a heirachy of offence where their offence is worth more than mine. That is the cancer of free speech.

[Glamrocker]

You forget theres no such thing as free speech on Sheffield Forum,as is regularly stated this is a privately owned forum, the forum generates income therefore any thread which may harm the earnings of the forum will more than likely be pulled therefore negating any freedom of speech.