Free Speech - Genuine right or pathetic excuse?

**Copperknickers II** · May 19, 2009, 01:39 PM

I am getting fed up with the amounts of racists, nationalists and hate preachers that are not punished on the basis that they are practicing the right to 'free speech'. I frequently see posts in the Mudpit about BNP terrorists or Criticisers of religions or immigrants, that recieve the reply:

"Oh, that's terrible, but he has the right to free speech so we can't stop him, we can't punish him for his words."

Let's take a look at the democrat's bible, the UN International Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the Genesis of the idea of Free speech:

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Freedom of expression, imapart information, etc. Now let's take a look at something else, from the same document:

Article 29

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I could go on all day, but my point is: Freedom of expression and opinion does not mean that you are free to insult and belittle others. With every right, there comes a responsibility, and for this right, the responsibility is to safeguard the wellbeing of others by respecting their opinions, and not making false or offensive generalities or singularities for the purpose of inciting hatred or furthering one's own goals.

So, is Freedom of Expression a genuine right, allowing people to voice their opinions? Can it be used as an excuse for hate preachers? Where are the limits to what can be considered a right?

Thoughts...

**Boer** · May 19, 2009, 04:38 PM

Free speech can (and often is) used to defend and excuse hate speech. While I agree with you that I'd rather not have people spewing hate speech, I'm not willing to allow the government to crack down on every one who it thinks is using hate speech because, one day, I may say something it considers hateful (that's right, I'm really only concerned with protecting the right of others as a means to protecting my own rights). The government should step in when hate speech involves a call for violence or the violation of a law, although determining exactly when such a line has and has not been crossed is decidedly unclear because the call for violence is usually implied and not obvious and clear cut.

However, I think that society (ie, the people, not the government) can play a large roll in limiting hate speech. Just because a person has a right to say some hateful stuff does not mean that the TV/radio stations need to air it, or that people need to give the hate-monger an audience. If a radio station is broadcasting hate speech the government should not be allowed to come in and shut it down, but I feel that advertisers do have the right to withdraw their commercials from a station that broadcasts messages they feel are hateful. The threat of economic impact on the station can have major results.

**Sevasti** · May 19, 2009, 05:07 PM

Better to get fed up than shot down. Take away the right of speech and all that is left for those silenced is to take up arms. The law is there to to protect the people from being oppressed through monopolized propaganda, even if that means counterbalancing with the occasional hate mongering. Free speech is still better than no speech and selective speech is just a form of hypocrisy.

Free speech is a genuine right and anyone has the full right to boo, applaud or argue against an expressed view. Better to discuss and reach a conclusion than going on a witch hunt on others just because it doesn't suit our taste. Besides, hate speeches occurs in every camp, we're just too biased to acknowledge our own.

I'm all for peace, love and understanding. I'm also for your right to disagree with me.

**Marie Louise von Preussen** · May 19, 2009, 05:06 PM

The day we start suppressing people merely for uncomfortable political opinions is the day when "Free Speech" will be definitely curtailed.

**Fixiwee** · May 19, 2009, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Voltaire le Philosophe

The day we start suppressing people merely for uncomfortable political opinions is the day when "Free Speech" will be definitely curtailed.

So it is perfectly okay with you if I state that every Jew/Muslim/<insert random group here> should be killed?

**Phalanx300** · May 21, 2009, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Voltaire le Philosophe

The day we start suppressing people merely for uncomfortable political opinions is the day when "Free Speech" will be definitely curtailed.

Seeing as Geert Wilders is now being charged for Hate speech for saying what millions of others are thinking that time might be near...

**Каие** · May 19, 2009, 05:27 PM

If one advocates a crime, of any kind at all, they should be punished. Otherwise let them eat cake. And joke on the venom.

As one columnist put it on the BNP "Griffin should be given free reign to say what he wants...and choke on his own venom". Too long in the spotlight and they'll start making mistakes and slip up. They are raving idiots after all.

**Denny Crane!** · May 20, 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

If one advocates a crime, of any kind at all, they should be punished. Otherwise let them eat cake. And joke on the venom.

As one columnist put it on the BNP "Griffin should be given free reign to say what he wants...and choke on his own venom". Too long in the spotlight and they'll start making mistakes and slip up. They are raving idiots after all.

What you mean like my constant advocacy of the right to take drugs and the benefits of one drug over another. My constant advocacy and support of euthanasia.

Maybe I should be punished

**Каие** · May 20, 2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Seneca

What you mean like my constant advocacy of the right to take drugs and the benefits of one drug over another. My constant advocacy and support of euthanasia.

Maybe I should be punished

I'm pro soft drug legalisation (even the worst drugs are 60 times less dangerous than tobacco), and am extremely sympathetic to euthanasia under the Oregon model.... when I had to argue for them in the north England college debates.

**Denny Crane!** · May 20, 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

I'm pro soft drug legalisation (even the worst drugs are 60 times less dangerous than tobacco), and am extremely sympathetic to euthanasia under the Oregon model.... when I had to argue for them in the north England college debates.

then you are advocating crimes?

Its a line your drawing in the sand with your previous statement that needs heavy qualifications.

**Каие** · May 22, 2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Seneca

then you are advocating crimes?

Its a line your drawing in the sand with your previous statement that needs heavy qualifications.

I advocated a crime? Since when was political lobbying for the change of a law a crime? So the anti-hunting=-ban people are committing a crime? Anti-Iraq war protesters = criminals? I didn't urge people to smoke drugs or mercy kill people, in fact I hate drugs and would, and always do, advise against it.

So I don't understand what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Rufats

This.

Well, what about alcohol? Not many people are responsible enough to drink and NOT to drive. Obviously endangering others' lives. Soft drugs aren't that harmless (both, to the user and the people around him) either. In my opinion, it's stepping into the grey zone, when you include drugs in the free speech debate. On the other hand, what isn't?

I'm not including drugs in the free speech debate, the only thing I said, is if someone advocates a crime it oversteps a boundary in the free speech debate. I.e. murder, theft, assault, dangerous behaviour etc.

On alcohol, if I had my way Alcohol would be regulated and taxed so hard. But the regulation takes time and costs money, and the taxes hurt poor people.

**Khannis** · May 20, 2009, 07:50 PM

In other words: crime is an arbitrary notion, I agree, Seneca.

**Kiljan Arslan** · May 19, 2009, 06:33 PM

let extremists have their speech so people can see them for what they are.

**Visna** · May 19, 2009, 06:35 PM

It's not just a genuine right, it's absolutely essential.

**★Bandiera Rossa☭** · May 19, 2009, 06:39 PM

I am actually for extending the right of free speech, There are many things that will get you arrested for disturbing the peace which I believe make no sense. I should be able to go into the middle of a mall and shout whatever profanity that I wish.

**Viking Prince** · May 20, 2009, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Slurricane

I am actually for extending the right of free speech, There are many things that will get you arrested for disturbing the peace which I believe make no sense. I should be able to go into the middle of a mall and shout whatever profanity that I wish.

I will bit on this one!

Why should you have a right to scream obsenities on private property and disrupt people going about their private affairs? The reason for the speech protection is to curtail government. Free speech is not meant to let the inner barbarian out within you.

**Wilder** · May 20, 2009, 01:21 AM