Be Excellent To Each Other

I'm arguing on another forum about racism and I've been accused of "not allowing freedom of speech" because I think racism isn't on. Now, what do you guys think?

People should be allowed to say and do whatever the fuck they want, or People should be allowed to say and do whatever the fuck they want within reason?

People should be allowed to say what the hell they like - but if that upsets someone and they get lamped in the gob, that's their own lookout.

'Do', of course, is entirely different from 'say'.

People can say what they want, but if you act like a cunt, expect to be treated like one.

I'd say so. There are plenty of things you can say that make you look like a cock, racism, sexism, lies, but you should always have the right to do so if you want.
Saying that, of course, there are a few things I won't let people say on this forum, but that's by the by.

Do we actually have freedom of speech in the UK?

It's a qualified right under Article 10 of the ECHR or Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, with rights come responsibilities. And that's important.

I'd say so. There are plenty of things you can say that make you look like a cock, racism, sexism, lies, but you should always have the right to do so if you want.
Saying that, of course, there are a few things I won't let people say on this forum, but that's by the by.

Do we actually have freedom of speech in the UK?

Saying that, of course, there are a few things I won't let people say on this forum, but that's by the by.

Saying that, of course, there are a few things I won't let people say on this forum, but that's by the by.

From a legal standpoint, or a personal one?

Nobody is ever arrested for saying things

What about all these bullshit "inciting hatred" laws?

What about all these bullshit "inciting hatred" laws?

Article 10 . Freedom of expression
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.

‘The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess and indeed that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done’. Lord Coleridge

It is obvious that certain information should remain classified, yet this will sometimes rub up against public interest.

Section 12 (4) Test

The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

(a) the extent to which—

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

(b) any relevant privacy code.

What is ‘In the public interest?’

According to the Press Complaint’s Commission Code of Practice:

* detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanor;
* protecting public health and safety;
* preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.

Ahhh libel and defamation law. The guy who came up with those is an actual cunt.

/runs

Venables and Thompson v MGN 2001

Taking into account the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights, the law of confidence could be extended in exceptional cases to impose restrictions on the press, where not to do so would be likely to lead to serious injury, or to the death, of the person seeking that confidentiality. In the instant case, the injunctions were necessary to protect the claimants from serious and irreparable harm from individuals who sought revenge for the murder and accordingly fell within the exceptions to freedom of expression pursuant to art 10 of the Convention. Moreover there was a serious risk to the claimants’ rights under arts 2 and 3 which protected the right to life and prohibited torture. The claimants were uniquely notorious and on release were to be given new identities to prevent the risks of identification which were real and substantial. It was necessary, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, to place the right of confidence above the right of the media to publish freely information about the claimants. Although the crime was particularly heinous, the claimants did not forfeit their rights under English law and under the Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, it was necessary to grant injunctions restraining the media from disclosing information about the new identity, appearance or addresses of the claimants when they were released from detention as well as information about their present appearance and whereabouts.

Hello, Titler!

I fall into the 'People should be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want within reason?' camp.

I suppose it does depend on the situation..

Uh - section 2 of the first quote basically says that you have the right to express whatever you want, but that the state has the right to punish you for it in any way they see fit.

“To use a well worn metaphor, in the relationship between the individual and the Government, Art 10 provides the individual with a shield but not a sword: it protects him form interference by the Government with his right to receive information from those willing to provide it, but does not enable him to force the Government to disclose information to him.”

Isn't this a little bit like all those arguments about semantics. The problem here is ignorance and people vocalising their uninformed opinions on things usually - if you can educate the ignorant to understand more that their opinion may be misguided then they're not bigoted/racist/xenophobic etc, they're just ignorant. Ignorance, on the face of things is a much bigger ailment in modern life than being misguided IMO, but beating people with a stick and imposing rules on them because of this is wrong.
If, however, they are resolute in their beliefs as they cannot or will not accept that their opinion is at best insular and at worst motivated by uninformed hatred is a serious problem which I can't see any way of easily resolving without applying the very fascistic techniques these people would see imposed on people who don't share their opinions/creed/ethnicity. Which is all kinds of ironic.

And, of course, libel.

Uh - section 2 of the first quote basically says that you have the right to express whatever you want, but that the state has the right to punish you for it in any way they see fit.

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.

You don't get arrested for libel (isn't it slander?) though.

Slander and Libel are two different things! Libel is written and slander is speech. It all falls under the defamation umbrella, though.

It also gets a little bit more complicated when it comes to TV and Radio, because broadcasters are usually speaking, making it slander, but it can be recorded permanantly making it libel. It's basically bullshit semantics.

Trouble is, you've immediately just opened up the fun.

Who gets to choose what you can say?

It's an awesome thing to learn about though.

Read what I said again

edit: HEY WAITAMINNIT!

You should be free to say any damned fool thing you choose.

I should be free to call you a wanker because of it.

Remember kids, just saying "I've a right to my opinion! It's freedom of speech!" isn't actually an argument.

Trouble is, you've immediately just opened up the fun.

Who gets to choose what you can say?

I wondered what was going on then.. a 'freedom of speech' thread being locked.