Sometimes it worries me that we are violent or intimadating to certain small extreme groups when they try to excercise their freedom of speech. If these people are nutters, they will never be anything, but it very much worries me that this can happen.
We must allow people to have whatever views they want.
What does anyone else think?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071126/tuk-protests-as-oxford-hosts-bnp-leader-6323e80_1.html
2007-11-25 23:08:20 · 11 answers · asked by Barbara Doll to you 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Freedom of speech is not a God given right. It has to be fought tooth and nail. This means that you have to defend the right of some pretty nasty people to have their say (BNP & certain Muslim Priests) The only halt that should be called upon is an abuse in which people are incited to harm others. The Law must step in then to prevent unrest and anarchy. The problem comes when others using "Free Speech" use their right to free speech to prevent others speaking and then breech of peace orders have to be made. I do sometimes think that the wrong ones stand in the dock accused of a Breech of the Peace
2007-11-26 01:18:08 · answer #1 · answered by Scouse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the country you live. Freedom of speech means different things in different countries.
Freedom of speech is letting the people that you MOST disagree with have their say (the US for example)...Letting people that you agree with having their say (the UK, Germany, Austria, Iran, North Korea etc...) for example is not freedom of speech.
xialou1 ....
Yes. That is VERY scary.
In the US however you have a written constitution. Which in the end of the day would be up to the supreme court to decide what freedom of speech is and how far can it go.
In the UK unfortunately we don't. Parliament can pass whatever law it sees fit....we can then only hope that ECHR would look after and protect our "liberties".
2007-11-25 23:14:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what country you live in as the laws on this subject vary. As a citizen of the United States I believe all are entitled to free speech, but freedoms are not absolute. In short freedom of speech is not a license to make whatever outrageous, or insulting claims you choose. Freedom also carries with it responsibility. Claiming that the Holocaust never happened denies established facts. Should outright fabrications of the truth really be protected? Possibly, but remember that speaking out against such travesties also constitutes free speech. It is a double edged sword and what you consider acceptable might offend me greatly, but I will still defend your right to say it.
2007-11-25 23:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Freedom of speech should be exercised and be seen to be exercised. The debate should contain for and against and then let people make their own minds up. I would be disappointed with the Oxford union if they withdraw the invitation.
If you cannot have free speech at a University when can u have it.
2007-11-25 23:20:11 · answer #4 · answered by shafter 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
provided there are no threats of violence or incitement to violence IE: behead all non believers etc etc, then every body should be free to express their opinions, on what ever! subject. for instance Nick Griffin 'of the British Nationalist Party' in going to oxford, is simply putting he's ideals forward for debate. what ever your views on the British Nationalist Party are, you have to admire he's courage and conviction to publicly stand before the country's most intelligent people and debate those ideals. those that have found it handy , 'through a lack of decent argument' to dismiss Nick Griffin as being a brainless thug!! are in for a bit of a surprise when they suddenly realise that he is a university man himself, and not!! a mindless moron. (far from it) if he were! the powers that be wouldn't be afraid of him and he's party. I'm not a BMP member. but i would love to hear that debate. sadly it will be kept well away from the public ear unless MR Griffin gets slaughtered. if so! the BBC, little government lick @rses. will have it on for at least 6 months.
2007-11-26 00:21:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should be complete freedom of speech. Banning peoples views only makes them more interesting and seductive. The illicit is always so much more beguiling. Of course paranoid politicians can't see the subtlety of that.
2007-11-25 23:40:25 · answer #6 · answered by ketkonen 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
while staring on the fox information web site i detect that what they are asserting is relatively doubtful their thoughts in simple terms seems too one sided. that's what they are cirtsised for as there is in no way a case while its all one sided and fox information purely record the single area of the story.
2016-10-18 04:03:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been meaning to listen to the holocaust deniers arguments only because so many people are pissed about them saying it out loud.
It is illegal to say it out loud in one country,,,,,
"the lady doest protest too much"
adds viability to their argument,,
want to see something scary?
2007-11-25 23:46:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everybody has the freedom of speech, whatever the condition is. If your speech is convincing enough, you won't go to jail :)
2007-11-25 23:12:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just enjoy the times it doesn't worry you.
2007-11-26 02:22:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋