i dont see it as 'free' speech when you are oppressing the very exhistence of another human being based on race and creed. i can just imagine the so called politically correct giving Hitler a 6 bedroom mansion and about 500 quid spending money a week because he was a victim of 'free speech' i.e he wasnt allowed to express his views lets forget the jews he was condeming..after all whats wrong with it? it was his opinion..surely he is entitled to it...****ing do gooders.
It doesn't apply to this situation, Gent. You've mentioned oppression of free speech, racism and inciting racist mobs, so it's not wildly inappropriate.
Common decency overrides free speech, as it should. There will be times when this is not the case but this about as cut and dried as it comes, in terms of crossing the line.
Not really, when you invoke Hitler instead of trying to argument your position you're just trying to get some cheap emotional support. His comparison is so stupid in any case, not even going into it... Here's a test case of, what I think, would be a good way to tell if the law is based on a solid general principle, as opposed to focusing on a specific element (i.e. race/creed). 1: A group of English Muslims protests on the streets with messages such as "Slay all those who insult Islam" (believing they are protecting their religion or whatever). 2: Some non-Muslim English folk react to them telling them to shut up, some also including racist terms (i.e. aimed at arabs) , i.e. "shut the **** up you sandn*****s" (don't even know what a common slur in the UK is) My point is that a good objective law based on a solid principle should consider the first case a much more harmful form of free speech, as it's a "call to action" and its aim is to incite violence (even if it's not aimed at any one specific race). While the second one is a generic insult that doesn't necessarily have any other 'utility', except venting anger/hate. Anyway at least we all agree that the guy is an insensitive ****.
I'd agree that the behavior in example 1 is worse than that of example 2, but both are provocative and inflammatory. The first would probably result in a charge of inciting murder and racial hatred, as it did in 2006 in London and the second sounds like inciting racial hatred on it's own. The former would result in jail time of around six years and the latter would receive a fine and be ordered to carry out community service, probably.
The first one is inciting violence, the second is racism. Two different crimes are always going to have different severities when compared. The comparison doesn't defend your idea that racism shouldn't be a criminal offence either.
This discussion is difficult because the two sides are in fact on the same side. Both want to stop racism and violence. I come down on the side of Gent because as unpleasant as the comments are it is better that we SEE them. Suppressed these thoughts do not go away they merely fester and one day they will explode into life and cause untold misery. Hitler's Germany was born of the repression of free speech. South African apartheid oppressed free speech. It makes no difference whatsoever that the present oppressors have a GOOD cause, laying these foundations also allows them to be used by the BAD.
i dont think we need a degree to understand when someone is being a total basterd and bigot or if someone is being genuine and concerned..id like to think ive learnt smthing in my 35 years of exhistence to me both examples are the same 2 sets of narrow minded tossers,and im a muslim by the way so when Gent came back with his view that the 'hitler' example was used in order to get sympathy then hes wrong. It was an example used because to answer his 'free speech' conundrum...hitler's views were his 'views' so should he be entitled to them? these doo gooders know how to create an arshole but they havent got a clue about wiping an arse
Well Dona_mara "bigot" is one of the most offensive things you could have called me, but I'm going to be generous and not report you to the police. Except by most people's standards the first one is way more malicious, and intently violent in it's message. While the second most would categorize as a racist "insult". What I am saying is that we, as a society, can and should shun people who make racist remarks, choose our circle of friends based on these things, be able to fire people who make racist remarks etc... but there is no need for law enforcement unless, by some clear guidelines, those remarks can be seen as likely to incite violence by a wider audience. Don't know what that's got to do with anything. I come from a nominally muslim family as well from Balkans, though I'm non-theistic. Around here there is so much inter-ethnic hate going around, that you could write a full dictionary of vile ethnic insults different ethnic groups have for each other. Here too, I am pro legislation that holds people liable for making speech that could incite violence from the masses, knowing fully that even then judging what is inflammatory could be completely arbitrary. But ethnic insults on their own in various social situations? An insult is an insult, some are more offensive than others, but they are just that... insults. Giving governments a mandate to meddle on such issues?? Artificially removing these insults from the public sphere through fines etc. won't do anything to eradicate the underlying hate. Not saying there are simple ways to do that outside of restricting free speech... but why give up on one freedom just because you haven't thought of a more appropriate course of action yet? Hitler's views before coming to power weren't only views. They were a call to people to act on his message (i.e. he was explicitly inciting violence), and after he was elected to power those weren't views any more, they were policies. I repeat... a terrible comparison. You continually assume that legislation is always simple, and "common sense". What is right or what has to be done vs. what is wrong. What is crossing the line vs. what isn't crossing the line. Sure, on an agreeable case such as this most people wouldn't give it a second thought. But what we are doing in this case is setting a precedent that can be used to restrict freedom of speech on issues that aren't all that simple. And that is why a law on freedom of speech based on a more general principle (speech that can incite violence) is much more likely to stand on its own, compared to an arbitrary law that aims to fight a very specific kind of expression, such as race insensitive remarks. The latter can set a really bad precedent as Spurf mentioned.
.hitler's views were his 'views' so should he be entitled to them? The problem was not just his views but the fact that all other views were suppressed. The only way to stop Hitlers is having an open society where that society can express it's views freely. Once you legislate to suppress views it opens the door and then it all depends on who is doing the oppressing. Scum bags should be out in the open where you can keep an eye on them not hidden away plotting.
the last line is spot on..and thats my point.....we all know when someone is a [email protected] speech or not...as for oppression and suppression..you just got to ask the victims of a racial taunt etc.
I agree, no one is supporting the banning of the right to free speech, but when it includes hate of a group, then you have to accept the consequences.
People have every right to dislike or even hate whoever they want. It's when they act or prompt others to act upon those feelings that it becomes an issue. The BNP should be free to stand at every election. They shouldn't get any votes, though!
