General Chat

It is refreshing to see people making such a meal of a simple question. I sneaked off to bed several pages back, leaving the pot boiling, so to speak. Bryan, I suggest you read my earlier post again - I made no accusation, just a point as to how even an apparently innocuous statement could be misconstrued. Gwynne, your comment regarding shouting 'Fire' makes a good point; when does 'freedom of speech' become rabble-rousing? Only criticism I might have is the comment from Fitz that Britain gained its freedom of speech during WW2. Erm, no, Fitz; Britain has had freedom of speech for centuries; it is probably endemic to the isles. It was enshrined in law in the Magna Carta (1215), and, while there have been many attempts to supress it, it keeps bouncing back.

No apologies for bringing this back its a good thread. Robert, I actually don't think there was freedom of speech in Britain until maybe after WW1 when the class system was queried... before that no way, there were peasants and gentry and even further back only people to write were monks? Where was this 'freedom of speech' ?

Hi Fitz, it's good of you to keep this thread going (perhaps we may get the learned Len of the Chilterns to join). However, I think you may be getting a bit confused about British history: Britain was the first country to lose its peasantry; replaced, I suppose, by serfs - whose lot was not as bad as is commonly portrayed. General education was in full swing during the 19th century - it wasn't just the gentry who read Charles Dickens. Shakespeare demonstrated that freedom of speech was rife during the 16th & 17th centuries - the general populace may not have been able to read, but they could enjoy his plays, and certainly pick up on his sub-text. It might be that freedom of speech really came under attack as communications improved: the state could detect dissent early, and nip it in the bud. The British have never been much on oppressive state control; Cromwell tried it, and quickly lost his popularity. Much depends on your definition of 'Freedom Of Speech'; you seem to think of it as some class-oriented thing that only those who can read and write may indulge in. My own definition might be that anyone may utter disagreement or disaffection with any individual or party without fear of oppressive repercussions from the state. This is what is worrying me about Britain - the 'Mother of Parliaments' is passing more and more oppressive laws 'for our good'; in the States, as Felicity has pointed out, it appears that the media is being used more and more to control the opinions of the populace, with much the same intention - if you disagree, you will be wrong.

p.s. goodnight. If you want more argument, I'll see you tomorrow. Rob