General Chat

Do we really have freedom of speech?

Yes, we do, though too many forget that with 'freedom' comes 'responsibility'. I don't think that 'freedom of speech' is a license to say anything you like without consequences. There are good consequences or bad ones depending on what we utter and to whom.

If so, what is the limit (if any) of such freedom? Should we be allowed to express disagreement with major politicians? Is being allowed to utter blasphemies and obscenities 'freedom of speech'? Are we being led by the nose to accept one, but be denied the other? Which is more important to you? Let's have some serious disagreements, now. Rob

Oy, Felicity - let me finish! Rob

Interesting debate! One could argue that the best way to deal with the politicians is at the polling booth. I certainly feel that in the current climate in this country many are afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of being branded as racists. I think that somewhere the line between being patriotic and 'racist' has become rather blurred.

Oh, I could really get my teeth into this one, Rob. :-) We should be allowed to disagree with major politicians - what it the point of a democracy otherwise. As for uttering blasphemies etc - these are personal perceptions then therein lies the responsibility - if something is said to deliberately upset/antagonise someone else, there should be negative consequences, I think. The right to free speech should not give the right to hurt, upset or inflame. You can then get into a discussion about 'bad manners' and what is considered 'rude' by one group could be perfectly acceptable to another. Great topic!!

Sorry Rob! I was just so excited at the prospect of a good debate!! :-(

By the way I fully agree with Felicity in that we have to take responsibility for what we say and 'freedom of speech' does not give us carte blanche to ride rough shod over others

I think the question here relates to whether or not it's ok to voice disagreement with politicians in public. I was astounded and appalled when a member of a pop group here in the States said publicly that she disagreed with President Bush's stance on Iraq and many boycotted the groups concerts and she was castigated by the press. To me, at that point, freedom of speech seemed to be in jeopardy. Voting is one thing, but if you can't say what you think along the way between elections, well, something is wrong to my mind. As for 'bad language', swearing in everyday conversation is one thing when it's not directed at a particular individual. Unpleasant to some ears, it does no real harm and it can be ignored relatively easily. It's another debate as to that behaviour being disrespectful or rude. What I was meaning was that blasphemy and swearing at an individual to 'get at' or intimidate or incite that individual to negative behaviour should not be an automatic right, and to my mind doesn't come within the realms of free speech.

Hopefully Isn't that what democracy is about? So nice to log on here and see something positive To me freedom of speech-- is when they ban newspapers from reporting then I realise what I have. Disagree with you David, who says you have the right to swear and blaspheme?

I think that the key word here is 'respect' whether it be of culture, race. or political belief I feel that nobody should be afraid of voicing their opinion as long as it is respectful and not personal.

Responsibility can also have a converse effect in that if you accept certain responsibilities, then you may also be accepting NOT to have freedom of speech about certain issues. I am thinking of people who work with sensitive material and have to sign the official secrets act. An interesting spin off of this is people who work with celebs and are asked to sign a non-disclosure contract. I see this as a slightly different situation, based on personal standards of morality/professionalism rather than legality. Jay

Fitz, there's a lot of subtle 'banning' that goes on for the media in any society. The press and media can never give the full picture on any subject so they cannot be anything but biased to a certain extent, and there are plenty of times when pressure is put to report this or not report that, for political or security reasons, to name just two.

Agree Jay, But if it was against your morals(?) would you sign a waiver?

Felicity I agree, Wasn't thinking of 'celebrities' but more of when the press are actually supressed from publishing? Might be wrong here but isn't a D Day order?

David, Thats the freedom of speech - you have your view and I have mine and we both had the right to say it

Swearing and blaspheming is in the ear of the listener, and it is a question of good manners. I swear like a trooper amongst my own. I never swear in public, in front of people I do not know, or in front of people I know, or suspect, will be offended by it. I would not blaspheme to the Vicar, or anyone else I knew would be upset from a religious pointof view. That is just a question of good manners surely, and consideration for other people's feelings. But politicians - now that is a different thing entirely. Whilst I think there is little point in shouting 'Yer all a load of rubbish' in a generalised way, if we cannot publicly criticise our politicians then we are in a dictatorship. OC

Couldn't agree more Old. I swear like a trooper at work but never at home and as I said to David thats a democracy and freedom of speech and so glad we have it

I don't know what you mean by a 'D Day order', Fitz. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the comment about dictatorships, OC.

Thank God we have freedom of speech... think of the countries where they are killed for speaking out