Free Speech Debate

[Foxvint]

Speech you disagree with doesnt disappear if you don't hear it - it just goes underground and unopposed.

I love tattle (obviously cos here I am) but even tattle's gone a bit delicate. Always someone barging over to announce they're not comfortable with XYZ. I have no idea why there'd be an expectation that someone elses posts should make you comfortable.

 

[Milliemoo99]

Free speech is tricky......to some extent I agree that it is incredibly important to allow people to say whatever they want to say, which is why somewhere like Speakers Corner at Hyde Park is incredibly important. And if we have the right to free speech, we have to have to politeness to listen, and the freedom to challenge this thinking if we dont agree.

But we also need to be aware of context, and this is where Social Media gets quite so complicated. Children lack a lot of interpretive skills, so they need protection from some aspects of Free Speech, if a young child believes in the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas, etc etc...then they cant be expected to understand the complete differences between truth, exaggeration and lies. I would also argue that some less educated individuals also lack the discernment to really appreciate the differences between facts and fiction, and maybe need a lot more protection from say scams or fraud?

We also need someone or something to give us some basic kind of social and community standards to abide by. Religion used to do it. The ten commandments give great basic guidelines for how we should behave and what is acceptable behaviour and what isnt. The whole thou shouldnt kill or steal come straight from this. The united Nations try to give agreed standards, and then different countries refuse to agree, like child slavery or womens rights.

But then soldiers are allowed to kill, in the name of a legitimate war... it tends to get diverted into what is a legitmate kill and what isnt, ..So where is the space to discuss this? We get tied up in knots about the whole Gaza and Israel thing....as we dont have a basic agreed standard anymore.

And then you go online...and its .......carnage. I have no idea how anyone is meant to manage something that is so ill defined, and unclear.
Very sad and difficult!

 

[Yel]

I love tattle (obviously cos here I am) but even tattle's gone a bit delicate. Always someone barging over to announce they're not comfortable with XYZ.

That gets into free speech when someone posts disruptive stuff, like going to a thread to announce that no one should talk about XYZ (usually because they're sensitive to that topic). Of course they often don't see it as disruptive but their divine right to police others.

Some think that freedom of speech means they are entitled to their own view wherever they want it.

If you burst onto a stage during a performance to air your views on a topic you'd rightfully be taken off. That doesn't mean your right to free speech is being taken away.

If you come on a popular thread on a forum and are disruptive it's also not your free speech taken away if you get moderated for spoiling a thread that hundreds read. A thread isn't your own personal social media account.

Mods do their best to keep threads running well for everyone, but it's inheritably an unpopular and impossible mission. Many will believe they're the victim and mods are awful no matter how much you try.

These days so many believe they're special, and can't see beyond their own perspective.

 

[Foxvint]

Maybe the controversial sentences doled out for so called armchair-rioters could be a good jump off point for this thread. Do you think a jail sentence is justified for posts voluntarily deleted? As there's no way to measure if any morons who took part in rioting were enticed to do so by an ignorant or inflammatory post does it concern you that we're criminalising speech for its potential rather than actual results? Do you feel the line has become blurred between specific threat and bluster?

I was reading recently about updates to the Online Safety Act that would allow state intervention for posts that are 'lawful but awful'. That sounds like a slope any opinionated person with a WiFi connection could slip on. What are your thoughts? Throw in!

 

[NeverEnough]

For me free speech has to be absolute otherwise it is actually limited speech. However Free Speech should not be free from consequence. If you for example you advocate burning down the migrant hotel, you are a) a very unpleasant individual and b) shouldn't be in the least bit surprised when you get a visit from plod. You could argue that there is a clear difference between saying something and actually doing it, but that's for the courts to decide.

Where it becomes problematic is when very sensitive souls, usually from the extremes of society, interpret challenge as offensive or threatening. Mockery, challenge and awkward questions have been part of debating strategy since Ancient Greece. You can't change that because it "damages mental health" or which ever other bullshit you want to invoke. You can see this play out online, and even on this website.

For instance I will ask a question. What is the biological process which allows human beings change sex? Is that "transphobic" (IE it just is, don't question), or a genuine question from an interested party, because it can be interpreted as both.

 

[Sensible Susan]

we're criminalising speech for its potential rather than actual results

It's a bit more than speech I think.
Sitting here in my armchair, I could try to influence max. four people into my way of thinking with speech.
Social Media is not speech, it's publishing. Inciting fuckwits to burn people alive in hotels, basically writing a letter to 10000 people, that's intention not potential.

 

[Foxvint]

Not heard of that one but yes, I agree, they should have been charged. That is definitely hate speech as opposed to free speech surely?
Is it because the spoken word is said and done but if it's tweeted it's there in perpetuity?

No idea, hopefully someone with some legal background in this will comment on this thread in time. I don't think anyone should be jailed for what they say or write except in a few rare specific cases. That doesn't mean I don't think it can be criminal, removed from a platform, or that there shouldn't be serious repercussions sometimes. For example I think someone who posts racist hate against a particular group should be sacked from their job. Not because of bullshit corporate considerations like brand values but because there's no way that person can be trusted to treat their service users or customers of that group fairly. Even more so if they're in positions of trust where they have power over the vulnerable like police, nurses and teachers.

The one case in which jail might be justified for speech imo is hate preachers who wage a campaign for years against their religious enemies pushing disaffected young men to radicalism and violent acts because they've got disproportionate power in their communities. Their believers think they are a mouthpiece of God. That can't be given free reign.

I completely agree with jail for the rioters cos their ignorance and stupidity spilled over into concrete acts but I think jail for posts however repugnant I find them (and I really do) is not the answer. I also feel very uneasy about working class people with poor communication skills, who can't effectively express their frustration with the collapse of their communities and dismal prospects ending up with a criminal record for misguidedly blaming Johnny Foreigner exactly as large chunks of the press encourage them to do. That fact that sit comfortably along with of course they should have been bollocked for their dangerous posts with some action. But not jail imo. Especially in an overcrowding crisis where peados are getting suspended sentences.

I'm completely opposed to hate speech bills, not cos I'm a big fan of hate speech but because its so subjective, open to interpretation and will be used to shut down dissent and debate. There's people who sincerely believe JK Rowling should be jailed for expressing her views. There's people who think tattlers should be. You can't travel through life free from offence and hurt feelings cos what hurts mine wont hurt yours and vice versa.

 

[Foxvint]

It's a bit more than speech I think.
Sitting here in my armchair, I could try to influence max. four people into my way of thinking with speech.
Social Media is not speech, it's publishing. Inciting fuckwits to burn people alive in hotels, basically writing a letter to 10000 people, that's intention not potential.

That's so interesting so is that why it's treated more harshly? The CPS brought no charges against those men who drove through what's considered to be a Jewish neighbourhood shouting death to Jews but if they'd have done an FB post saying it it would've been treated more seriously? To intimidate ppl on the streets feels worse to me. I understand context is also important because it was a tinderbox atmosphere with social contagion at the time of the riots.

 

[Yel]

I think the people that posted about wanting to set fire to buildings definitely crossed a line. But jail time to send a message is crazy when you think how many people convicted of carrying out violent crimes get a suspended sentence.

I do blame social media for putting people in bubbles and they come to be unable to accept opposing views. Often defining anything they personally dislike as hate or illegal. These apps want people on their platform for as long as possible so they feed them personalised content like battery farm hens and they come to think their feed reflects real life.

So many forums have closed over the years (including tattle to newbies) as it's an absolute nightmare to moderate where there's only one view and so many expect this single view to mirror what they want.

 

[Yel]

Those making the rules can’t seem to define what free speech is what hope have the opinionated public of following them

Interesting that they've hidden so many replies, although I think that's their right to hide replies to their posts rather than a free speech issue.

 

[monga]

Those making the rules can’t seem to define what free speech is what hope have the opinionated public of following them

 

[Foxvint]

The Online Safety Act is going to be a nightmare for law enforcement. Morons will be calling the police left right and centre over social media comments. My understanding is that's a piece of legislation to force the tech giants to take more responsibility for content and stop the algorithms presenting the vulnerable with more of the same, eg girls who search thinspo will stop getting a barrage of it offered to them. And it's supposed to give power to close down these vile sites that encourage suicide. But you know in reality people will interpret it as the Online Comfort Act. Huge swathes of SM users voluntarily show their arses all day and then go berserk when people inevitably point and laugh. That's not covered bro.

 

[Sensible Susan]

That's so interesting so is that why it's treated more harshly? The CPS brought no charges against those men who drove through what's considered to be a Jewish neighbourhood shouting death to Jews but if they'd have done an FB post saying it it would've been treated more seriously? To intimidate ppl on the streets feels worse to me. I understand context is also important because it was a tinderbox atmosphere with social contagion at the time of the riots.

Not heard of that one but yes, I agree, they should have been charged. That is definitely hate speech as opposed to free speech surely?
Is it because the spoken word is said and done but if it's tweeted it's there in perpetuity?

 

[Moth]

Agonising over the 'right to free speech' has become a common pastime in recent years mainly because everybody has their own idea of what it means. I agree that social media has enormously exacerbated this problem although I would say that this is often because too many people think that 'the right to free speech' includes the right not to be contradicted. "Someone barging over to announce they're not comfortable with XYZ" is not infringing anyone's right to free speech.

Also there is a common misconception that 'freedom of speech' means freedom from the consequences of when, where and how that right is exercised. It does not trump (if I can use that word) all other considerations or rights. The 'right to free speech' is not absolute. There are many limitations to the 'right to free speech' the breaching of which could easily result in some form of sanction including imprisonment.

 

[Moth]

Agree but the sort of person who does that is trying to get people self censoring and direct the debate, so it does have an influence on how freely people express themselves. Not talking about being rude or abusive which is a totally different thing and should be stopped.

I take your point. Someone simply saying that they "are not comfortable" with a comment is usually irrelevant unless they can also offer some sort of meaningful contradiction.

 

[Foxvint]

Agonising over the 'right to free speech' has become a common pastime in recent years mainly because everybody has their own idea of what it means. I agree that social media has enormously exacerbated this problem although I would say that this is often because too many people think that 'the right to free speech' includes the right not to be contradicted. "Someone barging over to announce they're not comfortable with XYZ" is not infringing anyone's right to free speech.

Also there is a common misconception that 'freedom of speech' means freedom from the consequences of when, where and how that right is exercised. It does not trump (if I can use that word) all other considerations or rights. The 'right to free speech' is not absolute. There are many limitations to the 'right to free speech' the breaching of which could easily result in some form of sanction including imprisonment.

Agree but the sort of person who does that is trying to get people self censoring and direct the debate, so it does have an influence on how freely people express themselves. Not talking about being rude or abusive which is a totally different thing and should be stopped.