Freedom of Speech

[Juan Toomany]

With regard to the recent freedom of speech case, centered on Harry Miller’s transgender comments on Twitter, I was wondering what is acceptable when expressing your feelings in the public domain.

In this particular case, the police were aware that he hadn’t broken the law but recorded it as a ‘hate incident’ not a ‘hate crime’. So, it appears that they were attempting to curtail his comments.

I’m trying to leave out 'hate crimes' as they are specific, often attempting to turn people against others even suggesting violence and murder.

My question is this, is the public expression (Twitter-Facebook etc) of dislike, disgust and the mocking of individuals, minority groups, religions etc. acceptable even though the recipient/s might be hurt or offended?

And, where a complaint occurs should the poster be required to justify their feelings or should we just accept that that is the way they feel?

[Outrider]

With regard to the recent freedom of speech case, centered on Harry Miller’s transgender comments on Twitter, I was wondering what is acceptable when expressing your feelings in the public domain.

In this particular case, the police were aware that he hadn’t broken the law but recorded it as a ‘hate incident’ not a ‘hate crime’. So, it appears that they were attempting to curtail his comments.

I’m trying to leave out 'hate crimes' as they are specific, often attempting to turn people against others even suggesting violence and murder.

My question is this, is the public expression (Twitter-Facebook etc) of dislike, disgust and the mocking of individuals, minority groups, religions etc. acceptable even though the recipient/s might be hurt or offended?

And, where a complaint occurs should the poster be required to justify their feelings or should we just accept that that is the way they feel?

When you say 'acceptable', are you meaning socially or legally?  To my mind, the principle of freedom of speech suggests that legally you can be as objectionable as you want in public, and socially private companies can choose whether or not they wish to associate with you.  The problem with that is that the logical extraction is that companies and organisations have a right of association (arguably a corporate freedom of speech, in some ways) and what happens if they choose to return to the good old days of 'No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs'?

As with so much else, it would be really nice to have a blanket rule that applies to everyone, but reality is more subtle and nuanced than that, and haters will always find a way to make having their hate called out victimisation, and equate it with actual victimisation.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

By coincidence there was an interesting programme on TV about Holocaust Deniers by David Baddiel this evening. It featured an interview with some head of Facebook in Europe who was trying to say that people posting Denial materials weren't necessarily hateful but possibly "misguided", and therefore they didn't automatically remove such posts.

I was at this point screaming at the TV "well you fucking should you numpty".

I realise that holocaust denial is a specific and very special area.

But Baddiel also said something interesting along the lines of all these little lies or misinformation feed into creating a bigger lie. If that is the case, and I think it is, at least, a reasonable assumption then some way of tackling this kind of expression which whilst not criminal but could incite criminal acts needs to be formulated. How you even begin to navigate that is beyond me, that's why we need oddballs and misfits. 

[SteveH]

Holocaust deniers and other hateful rstbags should be allowed freedom of speech, subject to the laws of libel, inciterment to violence, etc, and be opposed with facts and logic. The restirction of free speech in the interest of not offending anyone has already gone too far.

[Juan Toomany]

When you say 'acceptable', are you meaning socially or legally?  To my mind, the principle of freedom of speech suggests that legally you can be as objectionable as you want in public, and socially private companies can choose whether or not they wish to associate with you.  The problem with that is that the logical extraction is that companies and organisations have a right of association (arguably a corporate freedom of speech, in some ways) and what happens if they choose to return to the good old days of 'No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs'?

As with so much else, it would be really nice to have a blanket rule that applies to everyone, but reality is more subtle and nuanced than that, and haters will always find a way to make having their hate called out victimisation, and equate it with actual victimisation.

O.

Hi,
Apart from inciting violence, which seems reasonable, but perhaps open to question, I was trying to keep the laws (socially or legally) out of it and discuss the merits of FoS, or not as the case may be.

For example, If we don't want restrictions on FoS then we know that some individuals will be hurt/offended, is that an 'acceptable' outcome/trade off. On the other hand, curtailing FoS, which is happening to some extent, is seen by some as the thin end of the wedge - government control. When there are rules about what we can say in public then, what we do say is open to interpretation and the rules used against us.

[Juan Toomany]

By coincidence there was an interesting programme on TV about Holocaust Deniers by David Baddiel this evening. It featured an interview with some head of Facebook in Europe who was trying to say that people posting Denial materials weren't necessarily hateful but possibly "misguided", and therefore they didn't automatically remove such posts.

I was at this point screaming at the TV "well you fucking should you numpty".

I realise that holocaust denial is a specific and very special area.

But Baddiel also said something interesting along the lines of all these little lies or misinformation feed into creating a bigger lie. If that is the case, and I think it is, at least, a reasonable assumption then some way of tackling this kind of expression which whilst not criminal but could incite criminal acts needs to be formulated. How you even begin to navigate that is beyond me, that's why we need oddballs and misfits. 

Hi,

I just caught the last bit of the program, I'd forgotten it was on. I thought David Baddiel had some good points. An upside of allowing people to voice there thoughts and feelings openly, however awful, is that you know what your up against and you then have some chance of correcting or countering their opinions. I doubt whether censoring will remove the issue.

[Outrider]

Apart from inciting violence, which seems reasonable, but perhaps open to question, I was trying to keep the laws (socially or legally) out of it and discuss the merits of FoS, or not as the case may be.

For example, If we don't want restrictions on FoS then we know that some individuals will be hurt/offended, is that an 'acceptable' outcome/trade off. On the other hand, curtailing FoS, which is happening to some extent, is seen by some as the thin end of the wedge - government control. When there are rules about what we can say in public then, what we do say is open to interpretation and the rules used against us.

I think, ultimately, we should have as few restrictions on freedom of speech as possible - people should be allowed to say what they want.  When horrific ideas are out in the open market they can be challenged, but when they're either hidden for fear of the law or protected from criticism by the law then there's the potential for issues.

O.

[Udayana]

Hi,
Apart from inciting violence, which seems reasonable, but perhaps open to question, I was trying to keep the laws (socially or legally) out of it and discuss the merits of FoS, or not as the case may be.

For example, If we don't want restrictions on FoS then we know that some individuals will be hurt/offended, is that an 'acceptable' outcome/trade off. On the other hand, curtailing FoS, which is happening to some extent, is seen by some as the thin end of the wedge - government control. When there are rules about what we can say in public then, what we do say is open to interpretation and the rules used against us.

People speak to convey information of some kind or other, this can affect how other people feel and act. If you say something that has bad effects, you have some responsibility for those and should be accountable.

[Aruntraveller]

Hi,

I just caught the last bit of the program, I'd forgotten it was on. I thought David Baddiel had some good points. An upside of allowing people to voice there thoughts and feelings openly, however awful, is that you know what your up against and you then have some chance of correcting or countering their opinions. I doubt whether censoring will remove the issue.

I have huge sympathy for the thought that FoS should be allowed, but I still think it is reasonable to point out that the theory that it thus provokes more scrutiny and you know what is being said is problematic in these days of echo chambers. What is being created in some circumstances are groups of people who are immune to intervention by way of reasoned argument because they're in a little cocoon with like minded idiots. The amplification of their sometimes dangerous ideas cannot be left to a woolly dewy eyed approach to the benefits of said freedom of speech.And as I said before how you navigate that is way beyond me.

[Roses]

Should Neo-Nazis be permitted to have a platform in order to spew out their disgusting white supremist views? These excuses for humanity are getting more of a following these days, which is extremely concerning.

[Outrider]

Should Neo-Nazis be permitted to have a platform in order to spew out their disgusting white supremist views? These excuses for humanity are getting more of a following these days, which is extremely concerning.

Would suppressing their views and giving them a claim to victim-hood for be better?  Let them spout their filth, then let it be countered.  You can't shine the light of truth on secrets hidden out of sight.

O.

[Gordon]

Would suppressing their views and giving them a claim to victim-hood for be better?  Let them spout their filth, then let it be countered.  You can't shine the light of truth on secrets hidden out of sight.

O.

That would be my view too. This well-known quote of Russell's hits the nail on the head.

Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

[Samuel]

I think, ultimately, we should have as few restrictions on freedom of speech as possible - people should be allowed to say what they want.  When horrific ideas are out in the open market they can be challenged, but when they're either hidden for fear of the law or protected from criticism by the law then there's the potential for issues.

O.

I completely agree with this position. The thing that concerns me is that social media is not 'an open market'. It is a carefully controlled market shaped by algorithms that are designed to detect and service our preferences.

I fear that the echo chambers or bubbles that are created by social media may serve as petri dishes for horrific ideas to ferment and grow in relative seclusion, rather than compete openly with their alternatives.

Up the soapbox, down with algorithms... doesn't really fly does it?

[wigginhall]

I agree with that, as I don't think there is an open market.   If I want to give a lecture on poetry to the engineering dept of Imperial, they will probably say no.   However, this not a denial of free speech.  We are all no platformed.  My wife was an editor in publishing, and they would have regular meetings where they threw out lots of manuscripts.     So rejection is pretty normal.

[jeremyp]

People speak to convey information of some kind or other, this can affect how other people feel and act. If you say something that has bad effects, you have some responsibility for those and should be accountable.

Legally accountable?

Putting people in prison for being obnoxious is taking things too far IMO.

[Udayana]

Legally accountable?

Putting people in prison for being obnoxious is taking things too far IMO.

Isn't the premise of the thread that the discussion is not about the law or legalities?

[jeremyp]

Isn't the premise of the thread that the discussion is not about the law or legalities?

What does it mean when we say something is "not acceptable"? If you think something is not  acceptable, what are you going to do about it?

[Udayana]

What does it mean when we say something is "not acceptable"? If you think something is not  acceptable, what are you going to do about it?

I don't know - some things are acceptable to some but not to others.

Probably nothing,  and I won't even tell you what I'd often like to do - as it is probably unacceptable, offensive and illegal!

[jeremyp]

Probably nothing,  and I won't even tell you what I'd often like to do - as it is probably unacceptable, offensive and illegal!

If you're not going to do anything about it then it is clearly not unacceptable.

[Udayana]

If you're not going to do anything about it then it is clearly not unacceptable.

Well .. what do you do about things you find unacceptable? Actually, what do you find unacceptable?
 

[SteveH]

"Unacceptable" is a tiresome modern euphemism for "wrong".

[Udayana]

Suspect we are heading to another fruitless discussion of what is meant by this or that word.

[jeremyp]

"Unacceptable" is a tiresome modern euphemism for "wrong".

Bingo!

[ekim]

"Bingo" is a tiresome modern euphemism for "House!"

[jeremyp]

"Bingo" is a tiresome modern euphemism for "House!"

I wasn’t using it in that sense. I was using it as an exclamation that PVJ hit the nail on the head.

I hate the way people say something is unacceptable when they clearly have no attention or ability to do anything about it. Governments seem to be particularly guilty. The government might say, for example, that it is unacceptable to lure a journalist into your embassy in Turkey, then murder him and dismember his body, but you know for sure, they’ll carry on doing trade with Saudi Arabia because money.