Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: floo on November 02, 2017, 10:36:32 AM
-
deleted
-
Would those who claim they should be able to speak freely support the right of paedophiles state they have the right to have sex with children? I remember a member of the now banned Paedophile information Exchange stating just that on a BBC radio programme in the early 80s.
Yes , I would support their right to say that. That does not mean I support their right to perform such acts , in fact in that statement they condemn themselves which is useful to the rest of us .
-
I am of the opinion freedom of speech is ok unless it verbally abuses innocent people in an unpleasant way. For instance, those who make racist and anti-gay remarks. Would those who claim they should be able to speak freely support the right of paedophiles state they have the right to have sex with children? I remember a member of the now banned Paedophile information Exchange stating just that on a BBC radio programme in the early 80s.
Paedophilia is illegal. "Racist remarks" covers too broad a spectrum, I have called out posters on other boards who post comments about Eastern Europeans that they would not dare make about West Indians. I am quite happy for them to spout their crap since it shows them up for what they are.
-
A Supreme Court judge in the USA said "Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre." Even in the USA, "freedom of speech" is not absolute. The boundary between what is permissible and what is not is very fine.
I think that - on this forum - we are generally agreed that, on matters of religion and religious belief, no-one has the right not to be offended. However, anyone who tries that out in Pakistan ......
Directly attacking people rather than just their beliefs is - in my opinion - not acceptable. "If you believe that then you are stupid" is different from "that is a stupid belief." On this forum we frequently point out flaws in thinking and also suggest that an individual - in accepting a particular belief - is credulous. Such statements are usually readily supportable.
As far as insulting remarks about ethnic origin, sex or sexual orientation is concerned, the law in England and Wales is clear.
-
Just as a slight clarification - shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is ok if it is true, or believed to be so.
-
Just as a slight clarification - shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is ok if it is true, or believed to be so.
however if you are tied to a post with a group of soldiers pointing rifles at you and you see flames appear, shouting FIRE is not going to help you . Just saying!
-
Just as a slight clarification - shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is ok if it is true, or believed to be so.
As is frequently the case these days, I have slightly misquoted Oliver Wendell Holmes by failing to put "falsely" at the start of the quotation.
Still, it provided the opportunity for some fun ...
-
A Supreme Court judge in the USA said "Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre." Even in the USA, "freedom of speech" is not absolute. The boundary between what is permissible and what is not is very fine.
The context in which they made that remark was in upholding the conviction of a man who had merely published leaflets arguing against conscription during the First World War. The problem is, of course, who decides what speech is equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.