The slow death of free speech


Locutus
#1

SpectatorAustralia ‏@SpectatorOz (external - login to view)

This weeks cover story by the brilliant @MarkSteynOnline (external - login to view)

These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
  • In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of ‘fukking Zionist, fukking pricks… Get the fukk off our campus.’


  • In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.


  • At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.


  • In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.


  • In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.


  • And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’.


and so on and so on and so on...


The slow death of free speech » The Spectator (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
#2
Robert Fulford: The villainization of*Ayaan Hirsi Ali | National Post
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3
Vladimir Putin's Four Dirty Words : The New Yorker (external - login to view)
 
BaalsTears
+3
#5
It's fascinating to actually observe an entire civilization commit suicide. We are witnesses to the historical process in action.
 
Praxius
+3
#6
Free speech doesn't equate to free of consequence.

You have the freedom to say and express what you want and everybody else has the freedom to not have dealings or ties to you based on what you say or express.

In regards to the situation of the Australian government and free speech, they're removing sections to allow for more freedom of speech which can increase the chances of hate speech without consequence. I'm not sure how that adds to the destruction of free speech.

Australia debates repeal of parts of racial discrimination act - Index on Censorship | Index on Censorship (external - login to view)

Quote:

He was referring to the Abbott government’s repealing of section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” people based upon their race....

"People do have a right to be bigots you know,”

 
Goober
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Free speech doesn't equate to free of consequence.

You have the freedom to say and express what you want and everybody else has the freedom to not have dealings or ties to you based on what you say or express.

In regards to the situation of the Australian government and free speech, they're removing sections to allow for more freedom of speech which can increase the chances of hate speech without consequence. I'm not sure how that adds to the destruction of free speech.

Australia debates repeal of parts of racial discrimination act - Index on Censorship | Index on Censorship (external - login to view)

And society as it heads down that path can ensure there are severe consequences for stepping outside of the PC mind set.
We are the first generation of Cyborgs
What is coming is scary as hell.

We are The Borg - YouTube

 
Colpy
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Free speech doesn't equate to free of consequence.

You have the freedom to say and express what you want and everybody else has the freedom to not have dealings or ties to you based on what you say or express.

In regards to the situation of the Australian government and free speech, they're removing sections to allow for more freedom of speech which can increase the chances of hate speech without consequence. I'm not sure how that adds to the destruction of free speech.

Australia debates repeal of parts of racial discrimination act - Index on Censorship | Index on Censorship (external - login to view)

People do have the right to be bigots, you know.

We don't need the thought police.
 
Cliffy
+2 / -1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

We don't need the thought police.

The thought police own all the media that spoon feed you your opinions every day. People like right wing mouth pieces, like Ezra and Steyn. And the left have their mouth pieces. All, both left and right, owned by the same people who own all the media. Most people are so brainwashed they don't even know it.
 
ShintoMale
#10
Employment
5. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 5 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (5); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (5); 2012, c. 7, s. 4 (1).

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19
 
Cliffy
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The thought police own all the media that spoon feed you your opinions every day. People like right wing mouth pieces, like Ezra and Steyn. And the left have their mouth pieces. All, both left and right, owned by the same people who own all the media. Most people are so brainwashed they don't even know it.

Oh goody! A red from our house ultra right wing nut who thinks he can think for himself.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The thought police own all the media that spoon feed you your opinions every day. People like right wing mouth pieces, like Ezra and Steyn. And the left have their mouth pieces. All, both left and right, owned by the same people who own all the media. Most people are so brainwashed they don't even know it.

And yet somehow, no doubt by dint of natural amazingosity and steely-eyed determination, you have escaped this brainwashing.

Wow. You should charge folks to touch the hem of your garment.
 
Cliffy
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

And yet somehow, no doubt by dint of natural amazingosity and steely-eyed determination, you have escaped this brainwashing.

Wow. You should charge folks to touch the hem of your garment.

No TV, no radio, no newspapers, no magazines. I get all the nonsense I can handle right here on CC.
 
BaalsTears
+4
#14  Top Rated Post
If hate can't be spoken openly it will go underground. That's too bad because hate is like an infection that can only be cleansed by exposure to air and light. Such exposure can only occur if hate can be spoken freely and forced to face opposing ideas in an open clash.
 
Colpy
+2
#15
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. (external - login to view)
George Orwell (external - login to view)
 
gerryh
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. (external - login to view)
George Orwell (external - login to view)


Just commenting on the link title, and the OP, but those that object also have the right to voice those objections. It appears to me that this "free speech" only extends one way. People should be allowed to spout any kind of bullshyte they wish but those not liking what's being said are supposed to keep their mouths shut.
 
Colpy
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Just commenting on the link title, and the OP, but those that object also have the right to voice those objections. It appears to me that this "free speech" only extends one way. People should be allowed to spout any kind of bullshyte they wish but those not liking what's being said are supposed to keep their mouths shut.

Free speech goes both ways.........everything should be heard.
 
gerryh
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Free speech goes both ways.........everything should be heard.


and yet, because people vocally object to the racists and other pin heads, people are saying that free speech is dieing.
 
Praxius
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

People do have the right to be bigots, you know.

We don't need the thought police.

I never said one way or the other when I linked the Australian situation.

My only comment on the subject was that freedom of speech does not automatically equate to freedom of consequence.
 
Colpy
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and yet, because people vocally object to the racists and other pin heads, people are saying that free speech is dieing.

I think you miss the point.....when you prevent the other from being heard, you are not engaged in free speech, you are engaged in the suppression of free speech.

Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

I never said one way or the other when I linked the Australian situation.

My only comment on the subject was that freedom of speech does not automatically equate to freedom of consequence.

Ahhh...that is what "free" means.......without cost.
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I think you miss the point.....when you prevent the other from being heard, you are not engaged in free speech, you are engaged in the suppression of free speech.

How can one "prevent" someone else from speaking?


Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Ahhh...that is what "free" means.......without cost.


So, I can yell fire in a crowded theater without consequence.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#22
The right wants to declare the death of free speech because they don't want opposition while
trying to kill it. The left rambles on about some perfect world in harmony that never existed
and won't no matter how hard people try.
I am not for people spewing hateful statements in public about others not in the least. But if
people were making violent and radical statements we would be able to witness the threat to
our society.
Why is it is we make a great deal out of the verbal sewage spewed and we never seem to
address the real problems that caused the statements to be made
personally I have trouble hating people I don't know, I am cautious about the intentions of some
that is formed by the statements that come out of their mouth and the violent actions they
inflict on others.
 
Colpy
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

How can one "prevent" someone else from speaking?





So, I can yell fire in a crowded theater without consequence.

Quite easily, nowadays:

Galway | BDS | Video | Israel student referendum (external - login to view)

No, yelling FIRE is not free speech, in fact it is the test of free speech. Anything SHORT of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is free speech.

If it causes direct, immediate, and intended physical harm, it is not protected.

That is the same as inciting violence is not free speech. I can call Islam the new Naziism, I can slam Muslims for any number of despicable acts, I can call anyone scum.....I can NOT say "You need to go to your local mosque and open fire on these subhumans", as that is incitement to violence, and is beyond free speech.
 
gerryh
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Quite easily, nowadays:

Galway | BDS | Video | Israel student referendum (external - login to view)

Didn't see a problem, in the one video that would play. If the mouth piece in the back was too disruptive or started to threaten anyone then security should have been called and he get taken care of. The room, however, was pretty much empty, so obviously, that particular speaker did not have much of a following. Try again with another example.


Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

No, yelling FIRE is not free speech, in fact it is the test of free speech. Anything SHORT of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is free speech.

If it causes direct, immediate, and intended physical harm, it is not protected.

That is the same as inciting violence is not free speech. I can call Islam the new Naziism, I can slam Muslims for any number of despicable acts, I can call anyone scum.....I can NOT say "You need to go to your local mosque and open fire on these subhumans", as that is incitement to violence, and is beyond free speech.


So, in otherwords, there are restrictions on "free speech", correct?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Didn't see a problem, in the one video that would play. If the mouth piece in the back was too disruptive or started to threaten anyone then security should have been called and he get taken care of. The room, however, was pretty much empty, so obviously, that particular speaker did not have much of a following. Try again with another example.





So, in otherwords, there are restrictions on "free speech", correct?

Yes, there are.

But shouting down other people aren't legitimate restrictions, whether it's a college crowd shouting down a conservative speaker, or a teabagger crowd disrupting a liberal Congresscritter's town hall meeting.
 
gerryh
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Yes, there are.

But shouting down other people aren't legitimate restrictions, whether it's a college crowd shouting down a conservative speaker, or a teabagger crowd disrupting a liberal Congresscritter's town hall meeting.


There are laws to take care of anyone that is illegally disrupting a lawful gathering. We also have laws that allow counter demonstrations.
 
Colpy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Didn't see a problem, in the one video that would play. If the mouth piece in the back was too disruptive or started to threaten anyone then security should have been called and he get taken care of. The room, however, was pretty much empty, so obviously, that particular speaker did not have much of a following. Try again with another example.


So, in otherwords, there are restrictions on "free speech", correct?

Whether the speaker had "much of a following", or none at all is irrelevant.

And constitutional rights exist as a defense against gov't interference.........so I would list the SCOC's Whatcott decision as a blatant violation of the right to free speech.

That said, I find the tendency to prevent speech by shouting down the opposite side to be very disturbing. Yes, security should have dragged the moron out, but we don't do that anymore. Same as when Christie Blatchford went to speak at Waterloo.....

Waterloo protesters silence Blatchford | J-source.ca (external - login to view)

We now tolerate those who would disrupt debate. We should not.

Yes speech has limits.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

There are laws to take care of anyone that is illegally disrupting a lawful gathering. We also have laws that allow counter demonstrations.

Exactly.

But we no longer enforce them
 
gerryh
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Whether the speaker had "much of a following", or none at all is irrelevant.

And constitutional rights exist as a defense against gov't interference.........so I would list the SCOC's Whatcott decision as a blatant violation of the right to free speech.

That said, I find the tendency to prevent speech by shouting down the opposite side to be very disturbing. Yes, security should have dragged the moron out, but we don't do that anymore. Same as when Christie Blatchford went to speak at Waterloo.....

Waterloo protesters silence Blatchford | J-source.ca (external - login to view)

We now tolerate those who would disrupt debate. We should not.

Yes speech has limits.



Exactly.

But we no longer enforce them



Michael Strickland, assistant director of media relations, “We also had no interest in providing a photo op of our security dragging three people off the stage.”


This isn't about free speech being limited, it is about the law not being followed and not being enforced. The blame belongs to the University for shutting down the speaker and not calling in security.
 
Colpy
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Michael Strickland, assistant director of media relations, “We also had no interest in providing a photo op of our security dragging three people off the stage.”


This isn't about free speech being limited, it is about the law not being followed and not being enforced. The blame belongs to the University for shutting down the speaker and not calling in security.

I absolutely agree.
 
BaalsTears
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Yes, there are.

But shouting down other people aren't legitimate restrictions, whether it's a college crowd shouting down a conservative speaker, or a teabagger crowd disrupting a liberal Congresscritter's town hall meeting.

Another word for "teabagger" is constituent in relation to elected officials.
 

Similar Threads

4
Free Speech and the Right
by Cannuck | May 24th, 2014
28
has free speech gotten to our heads a little?
by Chiliagon | Jul 16th, 2010
0
Police vs Free Speech
by AirIntake | Apr 16th, 2005
no new posts