loveme4whoiam Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I was in a History class, not discussing the subject, as usual. Our teacher was describing a lesson she had given to a Year 9 (thats, er, 13-14 year olds) class on Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech (American history being a prerequisite of British schooling :wink2: ). She had asked all of her class to come up with their own presentation, saying what they wish the world could one day be like. After several expected ones (cure world hunger... Miss World speeches all, but thats no bad thing for a 13yr old to believe), up stepped a quiet kid who was generally silent in class. His first slide in a Powerpoint - "I wish that one day we can nuke Africa to get rid of the blacks." Second slide - "We should put all the f***ing homos in camps." You can imagine the rest. My teacher was stunned, quite literally. But what struck me about this was that she was not allowed by law and school policy to tell off the child due to freedom of speech acts. Luckily, the class ripped him to shreds when asking him questions, proving that for now at least sanity prevails. This got me thinking. How far can the ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of thought be pushed? Is it alright to say those sorts of things if you believe in them? British (and i believe, European, but don't quote me on this) says that as long as what he was saying was not an attempt to incite others to believe in this, it is all fair and legal. What about freedom of thought? Even if someone does not speak their mind on this, remembering that this is a generally quiet piece of filth, excuse me, person, can have thoughts such as these truly be allowed? My own belief is that things such as this should never happen, in any form. I'm a historian. Its my job to study and remember the mistakes of the past so that they are not repeated, and what gob-shite that little thug was sprouting will lead to that, if not directly then in-directly. But of course, there is the whole issue of legislating peoples thoughts and feelings, which of course is wrong. Where is society to draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Is it right to deny someone their freedom of speech when what they say is offensive to us? IMO, no - even when the opinions they express are as contemptible as the ones of that kid you mentioned. If you deny someone this freedom of speech, their opinions and thoughts won't go away - but they will no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and thus cut off from all debate. Is it better to have this kid's opinions fester in the silence of his mind - and, one suspects, his home - rather than expose them? Perhaps this kid won't change his opinion - but at least he should be aware now that others consider it wrong. And vice versa - the other kids in the class have been made aware that such attitudes exist. I'm glad they reacted with shock and outrage. We already have some curbs on freedom of speech, namely in cases of libel and slander, incitement to violence, etc - where one person's freedom of speech is causing harm to others. I would not want to see those curbs taken further - IMO blasphemy law, for instance, is too much of a restriction of freedom of speech. I think that freedom of speech should only be restricted when it causes harm to others rather than being offensive. Just about anything anyone says is potentially offensive to someone else - where do you draw the line? Was it right that a play in Birmingham had to be cancelled - IIRC the playwright even received death threads - because members of a religious community found the play offensive to their faith? The play was not causing harm to any person - no one was forced to visit the theatre, after all. The question is - once you start restricting freedom of speech, where do you draw the line? What else do you censor because it might offend someone? You mentioned being a historian and the importance of learning from the mistakes of the past. But as evidenced in history, is it not usually part of a totalitarian regime to restrict freedom of speech and thought? Isn't that also a lesson to remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Sort of got hit with the same question from my mom a few months back. Was over for Sunday dinner and she starts going on about how this new Jerry Springer drama being shown on TV is a catastrophe for all people worldwide etc. and how 16,000 Christians have written to the BBC to stop them from showing it, and the BBC are still showing it, etc. etc. etc. I then retorted and commented that freedom of speech is the same thing that allows these evangelical bastards to take over the main green in Torquay, for weeks at a time, to preach their Christian Propaganda to innocent bystanders, who neither wanted nor asked to be told they're living a lie and should become Christians at once to be saved (now thats a long sentence). She came back commenting that the Christians taking over the green are merely speading the word and not insulting non-believers. But I feel insulted being told that they're belief is THE belief and that I'm too close-minded, narrow-minded, absent-minded etc. to have a belief in a higher being. I really couldn't give a damn if Jerry Springer is slating the Christian faith. At the end of the day they can send more missionaries to unexplored parts of the world to convert innocent idigenous people to get their numbers up again and claim that "the Christian faith is still growing each year" despite the fact its a dieing religion in many Western countries. /rant Reading through this, I don't actually think this is relevent to your topic, loveme4whoiam.... ... .... Oh well. *click* :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 As I posted elsewhere yesterday we have certain restrictions on free speech already and I would not like them to be extended. In real terms anyone can say whatever they like provided they are prepared to take the consequences. If the person holds strong views, our not liking them should not be a reason for stopping him speaking. If his comments are bigoted and intolerant the chances are he will be shredded except by those who already hold the same views. Theta is correct about the play (about Sikhs). It has now been accepted for performance by The Royal Court London where it will have a far higher profile. So the protest has worked against the protesters, as it should. It is of course only the minority of Sikhs who found fault with the play. As for Jerry Springer, I once read what I thought to be a very pertinent comment. If a religion cannot weather criticism and satire, the religion is kept alive only through fear. As such the adherents of the religion are not choosing to believe but being forced to. By accepting thing like Jerry Springer those who DO believe in Christianity make it a far stronger belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 My own opinion is that anybody should be allowed to do anything that does not adversely affect others against their will. In the example of that kid, he is not adversely affecting others, he is simply stating his own opinion. The other kids were also voicing their opinion when 'ripping him to shreds'. The fact we find his opinion distasteful and offensive is not sufficient reason to muffle it. Where we should draw the line is where opinions become actions. If he were to start, for example, beating up black kids because they were black, or attempting to incite others to act like this, that is what should not be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Where we should draw the line is where opinions become actions. If he were to start, for example, beating up black kids because they were black, or attempting to incite others to act like this, that is what should not be allowed. Unfortunately history shows us that what starts off as "expressing free speech" in saying all black people are inferior tends to cause the actions to happen. Look at the KKK, Germany in the 1930s to 40s, American and Europe in the 50s to 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Unfortunately history shows us that what starts off as "expressing free speech" in saying all black people are inferior tends to cause the actions to happen. Look at the KKK, Germany in the 1930s to 40s, American and Europe in the 50s to 80s.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point, but if we do suppress these voices, we would not be advancing the idea of free speech. We would be advancing the idea of 'free speech as long as you agree with us'. Unless we give up all thoughts of the idea of 'freedom of speech', we can't suppress their voices, we can only do our best to show how it is (in my experience, anyway) usually based on faulty reasoning, or even outright falsehood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icefiddell Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I think everybody should be able to hold and speak their own oppinions but it is the government (UK) that are trying to supress anything that doesnt agree with them. Take political currectness for example what the hell is happening its a joke lol. My teachers at school arent allowed to call a black board a black board anymore, people find it racism, how? It's a freaking board. Sorry but i just find this completly hilerious and if you find it offensive then you really need to get a life, one of my best friends is black and he finds it hilerious to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Personally I am for the absolute right of free speech. With this I mean, you can say anything you want, nothing is forbidden. There are several reasons for this. First, words are nothing but sounds put together to which we associate some meaning. Words do not cause anything, as long as we do not act because of them. What causes something are the actions that can follow those words. Forbidding to speak freely is the same as forbidding to think, so I believe. Both can lead to actions, but they don't have to. There is a long way between something you say or think and something you acctually do. Second, if we start forbidding certain things, more will follow, until it will be only allowed to say something on which the government agrees with you. Restricting the right to speak leads to recstriction of thinking and exchange of thought. We cannot allow such a thing to happen, or we will end in a dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I've just come back from watching Alexander...the 3 hour film which could have been done in 1. However, it got me to thinking that Alexander is really what the modern world lacks. We're so pent up in our democratic, equalisitic ways that we have no direction. We're at a stalemate of advancement as there's no driving force... ... When the people believe in someone, even by religion, the efficiency of the state picks up drastically. If the people have a cause, for example WW2, efficiency goes up. We're currently in this state of democracy where nothing of any real importance gets passed because 50% of people think its wrong and 50% of people believe it's right. But when you have belief and faith in a man, such as Alexander who has not been placed there by some divine force, but through noble birth, and the people have faith in the nobility, that is when things really happen. You wouldn't question Alexander unless you knew him as a brother, for fear of death. Yet Alexander, on the whole, has a moral heart and the good of his people as his goal. We've just had a nasty situation in my home-town. The local council of 27 people are corrupt. These democratic civil servants raised their allowances in November of 2003 by over 65% ignoring all pleas from the public to reduce them back to normal. They claimed that the work they did entitled them to more money. But when they agreed to the job a year previously they knew very well what they'd be doing and very well what they get paid. It would be like George Bush deciding he'd take 5% of all American taxes and placing it in his wallet. Yet the people are helpless to do anything and the politicians are too scared to do anything. So these biggots not only get their payrise, but they also get to rule over Torbay (population 150,000) for another 2 years. So a plan has been drawn up, one by which the councillors will be replaced by a directly elected mayor. Directly elected by the people. The mayor decides everything, and he'll have a panel of 10 councillors to guide and help him in his task. The people decide the mayor, so if he's a crackhead with no education, we can only blame ourselves. ---- The point: I believe people should make sacrifices in the knowledge that progress will be made. Since when have people become so arrogant to believe that it's their right as human-beings to always have their way? What almighty duty has everyone performed that entitles them to this mythical universal right of humanity? We haven't done Jack Schitt to deserve it, yet we arrogantly believe we do. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.