When John Stuart Mill [19th century utilitarian] advocated this policy, Britain was not facing attacks from Wahhabis. Permitting 100% freedom of speech would mean alllowing Wahhabi terrorists like 'Abu Hamza' [Doctor Hook] to stay in the country, preach their Wahabbi ism with impunity and even receive free healthcare and benefits. This is obviously not something anyone wants to see. So is it time we dropped the idea of unconditional freedom of speech as being totally unrealistic, i.e. a pipe dream? Why should we allow the wahhabis to do as they please?
2007-09-15 04:21:23 · 16 answers · asked by Jerusalem Delivered 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, it is not time to drop it. What it is time for is to get the correct interpretation across. Freedom of speech has been misinterpreted to mean anything can be said without consequences; this is where the problem lies. Everyone should have the freedom to CHOOSE what they want to say...as long as they are willing to endure the consequences if there are any. It is like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium. A person has the right to choose to say that but they also have the duty to pay for the mayhem and injury that choice may cause.
2007-09-15 04:32:45 · answer #1 · answered by Ahmad H 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about Britain, but in America there a limits to freedom of speech...you can't use it to slander or threaten physical harm to anyone for example. Is it the same in Britain? I'm not familiar with wahhabis....
Peace, Love, and Blessings
Greenwood
2007-09-15 04:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by Greenwood 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
truthfully i do no longer think of we ever totally reached unconditional loose speech, inspite of the undeniable fact that there are people who might have us have faith we did. Muzzles have been placed on distinctive politicians, reporters, writers, entertainers, or perhaps the ordinary Joe if he comes up with the incorrect strains and a huge following, and that's been happening for years. If the muzzles do no longer artwork, a bullet will interior the long-term, consistent with possibility... inspite of the undeniable fact that the ability gamers might desire to be careful approximately making martyrs people can rally around, and it is greater effectual to wreck recognition and eliminate the desire to proceed. people who espouse ideas distant places to what we'd have in our land are going to get loose reign basically as much as the factor that they pose a extreme probability to the ability gamers (whom I become conscious of as great companies; the money, honey...) at which factor they are going to be bumped off, deported, debunked, or in spite of else works suitable. it is the way the international has been going around for a protracted time, as i've got seen it. no longer many people talk or do exactly as they please each and every time they please for extremely long, maximum fairly people who seize public interest and are not puppets to the powers that be, yet threats instead.
2016-12-13 09:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If freedom of speech and practice any religion people choose is abolished, Muslims will also not allow Christian missioneries in their countries. Beside preaching they also do spying for US Government where ever they go.
I personally heard President Carter saying during his term of Presidency in answering a question of a reporter,
"yes we collect information from priests and preachers also".
2007-09-15 04:55:13 · answer #4 · answered by majeed3245 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's look at it another way. By letting Abu Hamza preach his views, we can hear what he's saying, the actions he condones and he can be observed by the police. If we don't allow 'free speech', we drive views such as his underground and so, we are unaware of the views this cretin holds (and others like him).
I would rather hear his views, much as I dislike them, than be completely unaware of them.
I wish there were such a thing as 'free speech'.
2007-09-15 04:29:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Without freedom of speech what these people say would still be said but less openly. With the current situation they are easy to spot and easy to refute. The vast majority of people don't agree with them only Daily Mail readers think otherwise.
Additionally freedom of speech doesn't entail incitement to commit any crime.
2007-09-15 07:47:50 · answer #6 · answered by Bob-bob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea, but if it really was 100% then you could condem all muslims to a firey hell and march with the NF. Perhapse even put a huge picture of Allah tugging off on every billboard in Brittain. But you can't, so is it really 100%
2007-09-15 04:28:15 · answer #7 · answered by king_sigh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See the thing is, extremists can stay in our country and preach American hate and many do...but they're under surveillance and if they're connected to terrorism they're arrested.
It's "don't practice what you preach" basically...talk all you want about doing something illegal, but once you do it, you're in big trouble.
2007-09-15 04:32:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is all a myth. There is no such thing as free speech.
Don't believe me? Go to your local pub tonight and express your views of racism and immigration. (Your true feelings)
Now do you believe in free speech?
2007-09-15 04:29:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the freedom of speech is a great tool to get the wack jobs out in the open so the police can disappear them to the secret prisons of torture and slaughter
2007-09-15 04:26:50 · answer #10 · answered by voice_of_reason 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋