Lucy75 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 No, a conviction would be evidence that what he did was against the law. The police arrest people all the time for things that are not against the law. ---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 09:46 ---------- You are free to have (and to express) opinions about other users. Slander and libel occur when you make untrue statements about someone, an opinion, stated as such, cannot be untrue. Did you go back and read the OP by the way? So in your world someone as only acted against the law once they are convicted? I haven't said anything to the contrary, but I did point out that it is further evidence that people aren't allowed to say what ever they want, ergo not freedom of speech. If freedom of speech comes with conditions then every human on the planet has freedom and speech which makes it a pointless concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hasn't anyone twigged yet? That an old friend has decided to re-join us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy75 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Absolute freedom would include that. Clearly we only enjoy a limited freedom of speech. Which I happen to agree with. I also agree but wouldn't call it limited freedom of speech, because freedom comes without limits, and every human has the right to limited speech. ---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 12:47 ---------- Bit in bold - there's nothing to stop you voicing that opinion at all. But it is your personal responsibility to ensure that your opinion is sufficiently informed that you hold it to be true. That's a responsibility you owe to yourself, because spouting ill-informed rubbish about other people carries personal consequences (e.g. a sentence for libel or slander, with damages <etc>). It always has, and so it should. It's only defamation or slander if your opinion is factually wrong. And there is a centuries-old civil judicial system in place in the UK (and elsewhere) to ensure that, if someone sues you for defamation or slander, you can defend and defeat their claim on the basis of such facts. So why would you want to voice an opinion about a person which could be factually wrong, knowing that if it is wrong, it will damage the person's reputation? Or should there be no consequences to spouting ill-informed rubbish that causes actual damage? Solomon1 asked you that very question in post #58, and I don't think you've posted a reply. As for the rest and the very notion of freedom..."la liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres" (the freedom of anyone stops where the freedom of others begins). Attributed to John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). That's (IMHO) the best delineation between socially-responsible freedom (to say or do anything) and outright anarchy. In which post have I said there should be no consequences to saying or doing the wrong thing? All I have have done is counter this from the OP. David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech. Just about everyone on this topic agrees that everybody isn't entitled to free speech, because some speech carries a penalty meaning it isn't free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 So in your world someone as only acted against the law once they are convicted? In my world an arrest is not strong evidence of having broken the law, whereas a conviction is. An arrest followed by a dropped prosecution would actually point to them not having broken the law at all. Particularly in this case, where the only evidence required would be the statement of the police regarding what was said. Any opinion on the original post, I'll ask again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Freedom of an another individual to do what? To live with dignity ---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 12:56 ---------- Hasn't anyone twigged yet? That an old friend has decided to re-join us? Who is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) In which post have I said there should be no consequences to saying or doing the wrong thing?You haven't, that's the very point: you can't, because that would shoot your line of argument in the foot. It's quite clearly suggested in these posts of yours, however: Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. If there is fear of censorship or punishment then freedom of speech doesn't exist. So it was the opinion he expressed that resulted in his arrest. And that is what I am disagreeing with, freedom can't come with limitations, because once there are limitations it can't be defined has freedom. OK so we are not allowed to express our opinions about other people because doing so could be defamation or slander, more examples of why we do not have freedom of speech.Take your pick All I have have done is counter this from the OP. David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech. Just about everyone on this topic agrees that everybody isn't entitled to free speech, because some speech carries a penalty meaning it isn't free speech. All you have done is misconstrued Cameron's statement to satisfy your argument. To the reasonably intelligent person (which is most people, still - and thankfully), there is a clear line between freedom of speech in the social/communal context of the organised society in which they live (particularly a democracy, and e.g. contrast here "freedom of speech" in the UK, the US, France or the Netherlands, vs that concept in Iran, Syria or Russia), and absolute freedom of speech (which is what you're arguing semantically about, and which is not what Cameron was on about, by any stretches of meaning). You just don't, or can't, or refuse to, see that line, when "just about everyone on this topic agrees" that it exists, indeed. I'll let you draw the obvious conclusion Edited March 17, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy75 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) In my world an arrest is not strong evidence of having broken the law, whereas a conviction is. An arrest followed by a dropped prosecution would actually point to them not having broken the law at all. Particularly in this case, where the only evidence required would be the statement of the police regarding what was said. Any opinion on the original post, I'll ask again. I have different experiences, in my world the police tend not to arrest people that haven't broken the law, but they do arrest lawbreakers but then fail to secure a conviction because the evidence is deemed insufficient to secure a conviction. If what he was claimed to have said was lawful he wouldn't have been arrested, charged and sent to court. ---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 14:20 ---------- You haven't, that's the very point: you can't, because that would shoot your line of argument in the foot. It's quite clearly suggested in these posts of yours, however: Take your pick All you have done is misconstrued Cameron's statement to satisfy your argument. To the reasonably intelligent person (which is most people, still - and thankfully), there is a clear line between freedom of speech in the social/communal context of the organised society in which they live (particularly a democracy, and e.g. contrast here "freedom of speech" in the UK, the US, France or the Netherlands, vs that concept in Iran, Syria or Russia), and absolute freedom of speech (which is what you're arguing semantically about, and which is not what Cameron was on about, by any stretches of meaning). You just don't, or can't, or refuse to, see that line, when "just about everyone on this topic agrees" that it exists, indeed. I'll let you draw the obvious conclusion David Cameron was on the television saying in a democratic country like Britain everybody was entitled to free speech. Everyone means everyone not just the majority, and free speech is the freedom to say what you want without limitation, otherwise it isn't free speech. But lets assume for one moment that free speech means free to say what you want with limitations, that would apply to all humans, everyone on the planet is free to say what they want with limitations. So Cameron's version of free speech would apply to all people and in countries and wouldn't make Britain very special. Edited March 17, 2015 by Lucy75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Who is it It's...wait for it - wait for it.....................Smiffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 It's...wait for it - wait for it.....................Smiffy I worked it out yesterday, when I realised that the poster was only interested in scoring meaningless points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I worked it out yesterday, when I realised that the poster was only interested in scoring meaningless points. I worked it out after a couple of his first posts. ner ner. ---------- Post added 17-03-2015 at 14:41 ---------- free speech is the freedom to say what you want without limitation, No it isn't. 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