apelike Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Freedom of speech must be limitless otherwise it is not freedom of speech. My opinion and my right to speak my opinion trumps anyones feelings. But the problem there is that in this country we do not have the right to free speech . Not sure about other countries in Europe as some may have that right ingrained in law but unfortunately we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 But the problem there is that in this country we do not have the right to free speech . Not sure about other countries in Europe as some may have that right ingrained in law but unfortunately we don't. What are you claiming can't be talked about? Can you give an example of something you'd like to say but feel you can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What are you claiming can't be talked about A lot of things as in English law we are not exempt from libel or slander. The only places where there is true freedom of speech are Parliament, Coroners Courts and Courts of Law. Maybe some others I forgot. Can you give an example of something you'd like to say but feel you can't? No, see above. There are a lot of rights we think we have and seem to take for granted and which have no legal basis. Free speech is one and another off the top of my head is the right to a telephone call when arrested. Have a look at "The Clintons Misdemeanors" thread and see why the Gorgon closed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) A lot of things as in English law we are not exempt from libel or slander.What are you suggesting? That people be free to say and print malicious and damaging falsehoods about other people without consequences? Don't confuse freedom of speech for anarchy. That's precisely why freedom of speech has never been, and never can be, an absolute. People who don't understand that simple and equitable principle, and appreciate (and accept) the personal responsibility that comes hand in hand with exercising a right to free speech, don't have the requisite equipment to use that right tbh. Edited January 20, 2016 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What are you suggesting? That people be free to say and print malicious and damaging falsehoods about other people without consequences? Don't confuse freedom of speech for anarchy. That's precisely why freedom of speech has never been, and never can be, an absolute. Hang on a bit and stick your eyes back in before they pop. I'm not suggesting anything other that we dont have true freedom of speech which many seem to think we have. Now the USA do have true freedom of speech as its part of their constitution but do you see anarchy there? As I stated I'm not sure if other EU countries also have true freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 A lot of things as in English law we are not exempt from libel or slander. The only places where there is true freedom of speech are Parliament, Coroners Courts and Courts of Law. Maybe some others I forgot. No, see above. There are a lot of rights we think we have and seem to take for granted and which have no legal basis. Free speech is one and another off the top of my head is the right to a telephone call when arrested. Have a look at "The Clintons Misdemeanors" thread and see why the Gorgon closed it. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Hang on a bit and stick your eyes back in before they pop. I'm not suggesting anything other that we dont have true freedom of speech which many seem to think we have.Then why mention slander and libel? I don't think many think we have, or should have' 'true' freedom of speech. What I do think (and your mention of libel and slander is quite telling in that respect), is that many think we have, or should have, irresponsible or 'de-responsibilised' freedom of speech (say whatever without consequences). And that simply can't be right, as a matter of principle. Now the USA do have true freedom of speech as its part of their constitution but do you see anarchy there? As I stated I'm not sure if other EU countries also have true freedom of speech.Theirs is no 'truer' than the freedom of speech which you can enjoy here and in most other 'enlightened' countries (truly democratic as based on a Constitution or its equivalent in which fundamental human rights are enshrined) such as France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia <etc.> It may be more codified in the US and such other countries with a formal Constitution, but the rights in both types of jurisdictions (civil law and common law) are ultimately the same, since the respective legal systems codify that same right in their own way. How else do you think Abu Hamza, Choudary and consorts got to preach their fundamentalist vitriol in London, unimpeded, for so many years? There is no 'true' freedom of speech in the sense you imply, never has been, and likely never will be, for the reasons I provided earlier on. Everybody lives in a society, and it's society which codifies the extent of individual rights therein. Some allow more, some allow less, but none allows absolute rights, because such absolute rights would effectively prime over that society and so erode it/mark its end. Edited January 20, 2016 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) :hihi: Glad to see someone here with at least a bit of sense and humour. ---------- Post added 21-01-2016 at 02:21 ---------- Then why mention slander and libel? Because slander and libel is part of the reason why we don't have freedom of speech... Please keep up! As for the many, yes they do think we have that freedom and is what I have already implied. I did not imply that we had "true freedom of speech" but just the opposite. Quote self. "I'm not suggesting anything other that we dont have true freedom of speech." Edited January 21, 2016 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 No I haven't and you don't understand. Let's just leave it at that as we are going around in circles. Being offended is simply your brain interpreting information as an insult or annoyance of some degree. This would be covered by the right to freedom of thought and conscience. Not being offended is simply an absence of being offended, your thoughts would remain unaffected by the non-offence so would still come under the same right to freedom of thought and conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Because slander and libel is part of the reason why we don't have freedom of speech... Please keep up!I'd love to, but regrettably your debating, erm, "logic" is proving quite hard to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now