The news thread

[PapofGlencoe]

There should be limits to free speech, seems counter intuitive but it makes sense in a lawful society.

This american concept of free speech is not something I want imported into our culture.  It's insidious in my opinion.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[StirlingEgg]

We do have free speech. Sometimes there are consequences for what's been said though. There's a big difference. 

Meanwhile Sunak just looks like big wean again re the Greek marbles. He's very unstatesmanlike. Every time I see a headline about them I imagine them as big round marbles rather than statues...

[phart]

54 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Then thats not free speech. I would say America arguably has free speech. 

They tased someone for asking a question to John Kerry if he was in Skull and Bones.

Fuck if I could be bothered you could recite dozens of incidences that counter that.

It's easier to just state that absolutist binary positions almost never occur in reality.

[mccaughey85]

25 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

There should be limits to free speech, seems counter intuitive but it makes sense in a lawful society.

This american concept of free speech is not something I want imported into our culture.  It's insidious in my opinion.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, StirlingEgg said:

We do have free speech. Sometimes there are consequences for what's been said though. There's a big difference. 

Meanwhile Sunak just looks like big wean again re the Greek marbles. He's very unstatesmanlike. Every time I see a headline about them I imagine them as big round marbles rather than statues...

Thats technically not free speech. Who should set the limits, Westminster?

You either have free speech or you don't. Theres no compromises.

[mccaughey85]

26 minutes ago, phart said:

They tased someone for asking a question to John Kerry if he was in Skull and Bones.

Fuck if I could be bothered you could recite dozens of incidences that counter that.

It's easier to just state that absolutist binary positions almost never occur in reality.

I did say arguably. Its written in their constitution tbf.

End of the day its a big country with alot of different states so I am guessing that free speech will sometimes be upheld and other times it will be curtailed by ppl who choose to ignore other ppls rights.

[mccaughey85]

41 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Guns and free speech. What could possibly go wrong…

 
Seriously though there has to be a line. People cannot just go about whipping up anger and hatred . Laws  will dictate what can and cant be said in certain situations . MPs get chucked out or disciplined in Westminster for saying fairly benign things sometimes so it’s clearly no absolute free speech in the UK. 

Then you don't believe in free speech and that's fair enough but personally I think much more problems arise from not allowing freedom of expression. 

Has to be all or nothing imo.

[phart]

20 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I did say arguably. Its written in their constitution tbf.

End of the day its a big country with alot of different states so I am guessing that free speech will sometimes be upheld and other times it will be curtailed by ppl who choose to ignore other ppls rights.

Absolute free speech has never existed.

In where Free Speech means the right to say anything you want at anytime to anyone anywhere without government getting involved. Even the folk who wrote the first amendment didn't see it like that as evidenced by legislation written by them with restrictions etc.

These conversations were had centuries ago and written about in the intervening decades. However folk like to bring it up again like children drinking for the first time oblivious to the fact their parents did the same and so did their parents.

[vanderark14]

 

57 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

There should be limits to free speech, seems counter intuitive but it makes sense in a lawful society.

This american concept of free speech is not something I want imported into our culture.  It's insidious in my opinion.

 

 

fuck it I will join this party as my last appointment has been moved. This is what I believe too

22 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Then you don't believe in free speech and that's fair enough but personally I think much more problems arise from not allowing freedom of expression. 

Has to be all or nothing imo.

What problems arise?

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

Where did you see this?

All I can see is ambitious plans to have every home in Scotland at an EPC rating of C by 2033.

Daily express

[vanderark14]

5 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Daily express

😂😂

Youve copied and pasted the headline - there is absolutely zero substance to this. Try actually looking at facts instead of misleading headlines from right wing pro unionist rags

homeowners who face fines and mortgage rejections if they do not have heat pumps by 2033

[Malcolm]

2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

😂😂

Youve copied and pasted the headline - there is absolutely zero substance to this. Try actually looking at facts instead of misleading headlines from right wing pro unionist rags

homeowners who face fines and mortgage rejections if they do not have heat pumps by 2033

Just been on bbc scotland!

impossible for me to attain what Patrick wants to mandate without spending over £100k

[mccaughey85]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

 

fuck it I will join this party as my last appointment has been moved. This is what I believe too

What problems arise?

Personally I think ppl need to express themselves otherwise you end up pushing extremist types underground. 

I think we take freedom of speech/expression in the UK for granted and it's integral to keeping functioning country. 

Most of the western democracy's have freedom of speech and it's what helps keeps a healthy debate on differing issues that might be controversial.

Out of interest what topics or subjects would you limit discussion/expression on?

[mccaughey85]

23 minutes ago, phart said:

Absolute free speech has never existed.

In where Free Speech means the right to say anything you want at anytime to anyone anywhere without government getting involved. Even the folk who wrote the first amendment didn't see it like that as evidenced by legislation written by them with restrictions etc.

These conversations were had centuries ago and written about in the intervening decades. However folk like to bring it up again like children drinking for the first time oblivious to the fact their parents did the same and so did their parents.

So what would you consider unacceptable subjects or beliefs for ppl to express or talk about?

[vanderark14]

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Personally I think ppl need to express themselves otherwise you end up pushing extremist types underground. 

I think we take freedom of speech/expression in the UK for granted and it's integral to keeping functioning country. 

Most of the western democracy's have freedom of speech and it's what helps keeps a healthy debate on differing issues that might be controversial.

Out of interest what topics or subjects would you limit discussion/expression on?

I'm still not sure what problems arise from putting limits on free speech

You can have a discussion on any topic, as far as I am aware discussing subjects or topics is allowed in the UK.

[mccaughey85]

5 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I'm still not sure what problems arise from putting limits on free speech

You can have a discussion on any topic, as far as I am aware discussing subjects or topics is allowed in the UK.

Well if I said discussion and promotion of Scottish independence was not allowed would that cause problems, civil unrest etc

If I said labour or the green party were barred from expressing their views on certain subjects would you not think that would lead to civil unrest.

You take freedom of expression for granted.

Your last paragraph is true because we have freedom of expression/speech.

What subjects would you bar or deem unacceptable?

Leaving these things to opinion doesn't work. What one person considers hate speech another person might consider it a legitimate opinion. 

Should pro LGBT marchers be banned or pro hamas/Palestinian supporters be barred from expressing their views?

[phart]

32 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

So what would you consider unacceptable subjects or beliefs for ppl to express or talk about?

It's not a case of specific subjects or beliefs, it's a case of categories for instance libel/slander, things that fall under the harm principle. Like saying this product contains no nuts when it does. Harrassment. Inciting violence. Intimidation, threats etc.

 

[vanderark14]

20 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well if I said discussion and promotion of Scottish independence was not allowed would that cause problems, civil unrest etc

If I said labour or the green party were barred from expressing their views on certain subjects would you not think that would lead to civil unrest.

You take freedom of expression for granted.

Your last paragraph is true because we have freedom of expression/speech.

What subjects would you bar or deem unacceptable?

Leaving these things to opinion doesn't work. What one person considers hate speech another person might consider it a legitimate opinion. 

Should pro LGBT marchers be banned or pro hamas/Palestinian supporters be barred from expressing their views?

I'm lost here, your not making any sense.

It might be easier if you listed the topics you feel shouldn't be banned but are banned. 

[mccaughey85]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

It's not a case of specific subjects or beliefs, it's a case of categories for instance libel/slander, things that fall under the harm principle. Like saying this product contains no nuts when it does. Harrassment. Inciting violence. Intimidation, threats etc.

 

Eh? False allegations and libel has nothing to do with this subject. 

It's about ppl being able to say their opinions and freely express ideas no matter what they might be. If those ideas are stupid and ludicrous then the general public will reject them anyway. 

If it's libel or false allegations then let the courts do their job.

 

[phart]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

Eh? False allegations and libel has nothing to do with this subject. 

It's about ppl being able to say their opinions and freely express ideas no matter what they might be. If those ideas are stupid and ludicrous then the general public will reject them anyway. 

If it's libel or false allegations then let the courts do their job.

 

I defined what I meant by Freedom of speech at the beginning of the conversation and it is exactly what i said if it is in the absolute form. It's good to see you aren't a free speech absolutist then. We have no further business it seems.

[mccaughey85]

3 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I'm lost here, your not making any sense.

It might be easier if you listed the topics you feel shouldn't be banned but are banned. 

I don't think any topics are banned and thats how I want it to be. You take that for granted and would probably appreciate the liberty you currently have if you lived in a country where certain censorship and restrictions hinder ppls freedom of expression.

It should be up to you to name the subjects or opinions you think shouldn't be discussed if you don't want freedom of speech.

[vanderark14]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

I don't think any topics are banned and thats how I want it to be. You take that for granted and would probably appreciate the liberty you currently have if you lived in a country where certain censorship and restrictions hinder ppls freedom of expression.

It should be up to you to name the subjects or opinions you think shouldn't be discussed if you don't want freedom of speech.

Who said I don't want freedom of speech? 

Sorry, I'm still totally fucking lost 😆 how do you come to conclusions I take anything for granted?

 

[mccaughey85]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

I defined what I meant by Freedom of speech at the beginning of the conversation and it is exactly what i said if it is in the absolute form. It's good to see you aren't a free speech absolutist then. We have no further business it seems.

I am able to differentiate between libel, false allegations etc and freedom of speech.

The 2 are very different things. As I said let the courts deal with libel, false allegations.

Your confusing two different issues. 

[phart]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I don't think any topics are banned and thats how I want it to be. You take that for granted and would probably appreciate the liberty you currently have if you lived in a country where certain censorship and restrictions hinder ppls freedom of expression.

It should be up to you to name the subjects or opinions you think shouldn't be discussed if you don't want freedom of speech.

What about any topic which is not true and espousing it causes harm, i.e. false accusations. You said it isn't to do with this, but then make a statement where it is part of the group. It's very unclear what you are trying to say. Can you give an explanation what free speech absolutism actually means in practice.

How about the opinion that someone is a criminal or fraudster when they aren't?

 

[mccaughey85]

6 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Who said I don't want freedom of speech? 

Sorry, I'm still totally fucking lost 😆 how do you come to conclusions I take anything for granted?

 

Lol fair enough. I thought you were against free speech.

[phart]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

I am able to differentiate between libel, false allegations etc and freedom of speech.

The 2 are very different things. As I said let the courts deal with libel, false allegations.

Your confusing two different issues. 

absolutely not you've not differentiated anything, you just state no opinions or topics should be banned, then folk give opinions and topics as examples and you say they don't count. That's not coherent.