| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| sgmillerton |
right wing extremists at oxford yoonii'm all for free speech but sometimes i think left and right wing extremists like these 2 shoud actually be silenced along with the likes of muslim fanatics and the likes. the free speech argument is not a liscense to be downright offensive and horrible as you please.silence the lunaticcs i say. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7110758.stm |
||||
| Holebender |
Re: right wing extremists at oxford yooni
You would do well to listen to your own advice from time to time. |
||||
| sgmillerton |
Re: right wing extremists at oxford yooni
and you. |
||||
| SLG |
Oooh, good comeback there SG! | ||||
| sgmillerton |
thank you. | ||||
| Aventinian |
You are not going to be allowed to be remotely offensive in an Oxford Union debate (moreover, the Oxford Union Society is private, not part of the 'yooni') nor is there a great deal of scope for being offensive in the context of a debate on free speech.
People coming out with rubbish like "by having them speak, it legitimises their views" in the context of a debating society really need some common sense knocked into them, or indeed some rather forceful bigotry knocked out of them. |
||||
| Holebender |
Aargh, you cut me to the quick SG.
I'll crawl off into a corner and die now... |
||||
| sgmillerton |
don't do that. don't be concerned with such things, i'm not. it's easier that way. |
||||
| agentmancuso |
Agreed. |
||||
| Neil |
Is anybody seriously suggesting that Griffin or Irvine have ever done anything 1,000th as evil as bombing hospitals to help Nazis murder, commit genocide & to assist in child sex slavery. After all we know that all loyal members of the Labour, Lib Dem & Tory parties have done precisely that.
If not, & if members of those parties are allowed at Oxford, there can be no ethical objection. |
||||
| sgmillerton |
when did this happen, must have been a slow news week. |
||||
| Neil |
We had several of those illegal wars against the Yugoslavs. All fought to help (ex-)Nazis publicly committed to genocide.
They didn't mention it on the football pages. |
||||
| sgmillerton |
i think this could be part of an illegal mi5 plot? and the child sex slavery, who knew about that? were these high ranking politiciand taking part or just helping it along in the good name of kiddie tampering? fascinating stuff. | ||||
| Celtic Indian |
Good for Oxford uni.Everyone shoulsd be allow to say thier veiws as long as it doesn't break any laws.These people should be allowed to speak and for their ideologies to be debated.It wrong to silence them.If you don't agree with them,you simpley don't vote for them.But silencing them is wrong,because all you will do is push them underground,and when they are underground,its harder to find them. | ||||
| doodells |
I agree Celtic Indian. (Putting the BP guy to one side) Taking it a bit further, why is it NOT ok to allow people to debate on free speech just because they believe (in Irvings case) that the holocaust may have been over exagerated and that Hitler might not have known the full extent of what was happening (although he doesn't say the Nazis were innocent). While at the same time there is no problem for people to come and debate on free speech that openly admit they believe in a man who turned water into wine and walked on water, scientology, paganism, etc.
These are beliefs. If anything, David Irving has crediblility on the matter of the Holocaust because he has studied it intensely, I don't know many people who have tried to seriously study the truth behind the bible or other religious beliefs. For a debate on free speech, I think it is necessary to have a wide variety of people with opposing and wide beliefs or else the debate won't be very stimulating (because the spectrum of free speech being discussed would be limited). |
||||
| Celtic Indian |
I too agree with you doodells.Freedom of speech.If it not breaking the law,thne it should be allowed.Just because someone allows to state your view,doesn't mean you need to agree with them.Talking is the best method of resolving differences.Better than blowing each other up ! | ||||
| sgmillerton |
i've changed my mind, let them speak and let people tear them to shreds. | ||||
| agentmancuso |
Very sensible. |
||||
| Celtic Indian |
I thought so 
|
||||
| Reluctant Hero |
I would say Freedom of Speech is only that, if you are allowed to say anything. As soon as you say, "if it is not breaking the law," then it stops being Freedom of Speech, because then you are not free to say absolutely anything. The law is guiding you as to what you can and cannot say. Therefore when Britain and America talk all this crap about protecting the right to free speech, they are talking rubbish as there are limits to what you are allowed to say. |
||||
| Neil |
The limit according to the US Supreme Court is that one should not be free to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre falesly. This seems a reasonable limitation to me.
Michael Crichton has suggested that the freedom of newspapers to shout "cancer", "global ice age", "MMR vaccine kills", "global warming" etc is equally irresponsible & while he has a point I would not like to see speech so restricted, though I would not object to the media having to print equally prominent & grovelling retractions when they turn out to be false. |
||||
| agentmancuso |
Nonsense. 'Freedom of movement' doesn't mean you can go any where you like; there are always limitations. Likewise, 'freedom of speech' doesn't mean you can say anything you like; there are always limitations, and rightly so. Incitement to violence, slander, abusive language, are all quite correctly controlled by statute. |
||||
| Reluctant Hero |
In that case it is not 'freedom of speech' |
||||
| Aventinian |
Is a free man only one who has the liberty to stab people in the eye? |
||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Of course, your example is at the extreme end of things, as an attempt to ridicule the argument, but it depends what your definition of free is? If it is a person is free to do as they wish, then no, the man is not free. If it is a person is free to do as they wish (within the framework of the law), then yes he is free. But who is to say that the law is fair or right? |
||||
| Holebender |
Does that mean you don't consider it fair or right to limit free speech so as to disallow shouting "fire" in a busy theatre, or inciting racial hatred, for example? If you accept that these are reasonable and, indeed, necessary limitations on "free" speech, what are you on about? If you don't accept these limitations, how can you justify causing panic in a theatre or riots in the streets for the sake of your right to do so? | ||||
| Neil |
H*b*nd*r the question being discussed above is not whether it is right to limit free speech by the "fire" example but whether speech so limited can indeed be called free. I accept that while it is a terminological inexactitude to to call that "fre" it is a good working definition, in the same way that, for example, "independence" would be a fair working definition for a Scotland which was a member of the UN (though not of one which was also a member of the EU). | ||||
| doodells |
ufff a little bit sexist there Ave lol Are you implying that more men stab people in the eyes than women?
I don't think free speech is a very good term because in most countries the people are not free to say as they like. Why not change the name to Safe Speech? |
||||
| Neil |
|
||||