Jump to content

Is there a limit to free speech?


SpursRiot2012

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

 

 

 

 

I think there's a bit of a culture now for folk to cry fowl and claim to be offended by something...usually nothing to do with them...just to get attention for five minutes.

Eh? So by that, I can't be legitimately offended by someone being called a "nigger" or a "paki" as I'm white and therefore it's nothing to do with me. And in a right world that isn't the case at all.

Sorry I don't mean terms like that as they have long been unacceptable and rightly so. Ill think of an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The point I would make is that you would have every right to be legitimately offended by such language and tell the other person why what they've said is offensive and vile, but have no right to tell someone they *cant* say that. Point being, you have no right to not be offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think there's a bit of a culture now for folk to cry fowl and claim to be offended by something...usually nothing to do with them...just to get attention for five minutes.

 

Eh? So by that, I can't be legitimately offended by someone being called a "nigger" or a "paki" as I'm white and therefore it's nothing to do with me. And in a right world that isn't the case at all.

 

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The point I would make is that you would have every right to be legitimately offended by such language and tell the other person why what they've said is offensive and vile, but have no right to tell someone they *cant* say that. Point being, you have no right to not be offended.

Technically, you do have a right to tell someone that, and they have a right not to listen to you.

 

Basically, when getting right down to the basics of free speech, it's what you can say without facing any material consequences. As long as you're not being arrested, prosecuted, tortured, beaten or executed for what you say, or having your words censored, you're enjoying freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

You're right there, Carbomb. I worded that incorrectly. What I'm trying to say, in the end, is that I think there is an issue whereby the marketplace of ideas is shrouded in this cloak of censorship. Not government censorship or anything like that. But a fear, at the root of it, of saying the wrong thing. And as far as no platforming goes, I think it's a terrible thing. Because if you deny someone a platform to espouse their views, no matter how vile or wrongheaded those views are, you actually end up giving those views more power. You're creating a taboo. Far better, I think, to give them a platform and stand right next to them, on your own platform, taking apart the bullshit with a better, more convincing argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All depends on who they are, to be honest, and what the event is. For instance, you wouldn't have a transphobic commentator like Greer or Bindel at a Trans event. Conversely, Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time practically finished the BNP.

 

It all comes down to who is organising the event and if it's considered a safe space etc. I don't see no platforming as an issue.

 

Bear in mind, we are a bunch of white straight guys talking about this. We aren't affected by most no platform issues.

 

EDIT. Apologies, that should read mostly straight white guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Exactly. To go back to Malky Mackay's example, there was no way he could've got away with the things he said, not with the massive "No To Racism" campaign in football. The platform is the football industry, which has made it clear that racism is not something it wishes to be associated with.

 

When it comes to private entities, be they individuals or organisations, the best rule to assume would be "your rights end where mine begin". If you were to say something offensive to me, I have the right to withhold from you whatever favour or benefit I might bestow on you that you might want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate around signifiers is interesting especially with in the LGB........ Yawn. pantheon. In short, the people in those groups are trying so hard to define or justify the definition of themselves within what is an increasingly outdated mode of identification.

 

They are trying to conform to rules that make them inclusive or able to be identified when increasingly due to the changes in media and forms of communication, it's beginning to matter less and less to anyone but those annoyed by it.

 

Ironic then that the same, post modernism that allows them to express their gender and sexuality definitions is taking away their meaning as society starts to skew towards a more androgynous society whereby gender and sexuality choice isnt that important, because it doesnt actually define the person. Whether or not they are an arsehole or not does.

 

As a follow on for that, grammar nazi's and those protectors of how language should be especially those of English and French, are neglectful of the changes that have occurred or that have happened to their own language over time. It's certain that people from 100 years ago and perhaps as recently as the 1970's wouldnt have a clue as to how many (not all speak) due to the rise in text speak and bastardisation and colloquialisation of language through new communication types. Language has always evolved and changed whether it be spoken or written, but in trying to protect correct grammar or diction or even spellings then it comes unstuck as it's resistant to the changes that have taken place and in some case become the norm.

 

I wish I had time to investigate both of the above more as I find it fascinating, but in that sense of free speech, both groups are rather holding on to an outmoded and outdated ideal which has skipped them by, but they have refused to integrate or change along with them.

 

In terms of the rest of it. I agree with Dead Mike about the immediacy and publicness of concious thought, which is different to what it was and ties into the above. I think many 'groups' aims, including Feminism and the rest have completely been past by Gender Equality rather than Gender retribution or getting even should be the key, and for one thing that men or women are failed in there is another where they will gloat, chide and basically go for the gender one up, completely undermining the things they were fighting for in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...