Free Speech

[soulman101]

Anyone else worried about what you can post or say .
Have the days of free speech gone for good .

[Dubbag]

Anyone else worried about what you can post or say .
Have the days of free speech gone for good .

As long as it's responsible. Exercising free speech involves exercising responsibility.

[kettering_baggie]

If you want freedom of speech then you have to accept that there will be some that make comments that will be offensive to some. If that is not acceptable, then who is going to be the arbiter and where is the line to be drawn?

[baggiematt]

There has never been pure free speech as there has always been a consequence to words. The think people need to get used to is not hiding behind a screen and writing something they wouldn't say in public.

[kettering_baggie]

Racial issues, for example, highlight the problem; if you say something that is racially offensive it will be deemed my most people to be out of order and unpleasant but is it a crime? There are many ways one can be offensive to others that will attract no penalty in law, however, a racially offensive comment may well be designated as a crime. This is the slippery slope to the restriction of free speech, a process that is well underway.

[mickd1961]

Racial issues, for example, highlight the problem; if you say something that is racially offensive it will be deemed my most people to be out of order and unpleasant but is it a crime? There are many ways one can be offensive to others that will attract no penalty in law, however, a racially offensive comment may well be designated as a crime. This is the slippery slope to the restriction of free speech, a process that is well underway.

Labour are intent on trying to hammer the Right.

A pity they’re not as keen on clamping down on feral youth neighbourhoods, scum with knives, lowlife drivers and general crime.

[Calgarybaggy]

The problem with basing laws on what is offensive in terms of speech is that being offended is in the eye of the beholder. Its an impossible standard because what offends you may not offend me. Furthermore, you could be trying to offend me but I could choose not to be offended whereas you might not be trying to offend me but say something that does offend me. So the only value of a standard that you must not offend me is that it gives me a lot of power over everything you say. If I don't like something, I just say I am offended and then you can't say it any more. Logically, its an absurd basis for any kind of law and hardly something that should be encouraged in a free society.

[SwedishBaggie]

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words shall never hurt me… Eh?

[DaveP67 is back!]

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words shall never hurt me… Eh?

Exactly Thomas some old bloke got 18 months for chanting who the **** is Allah! Those words hurt him!

[Dubbag]

The problem with basing laws on what is offensive in terms of speech is that being offended is in the eye of the beholder. Its an impossible standard because what offends you may not offend me. Furthermore, you could be trying to offend me but I could choose not to be offended whereas you might not be trying to offend me but say something that does offend me. So the only value of a standard that you must not offend me is that it gives me a lot of power over everything you say. If I don't like something, I just say I am offended and then you can't say it any more. Logically, its an absurd basis for any kind of law and hardly something that should be encouraged in a free society.

I think you may have just offended me with that post. No wait, I don't think you did. I'll have a coffee and think about it a bit more....🤣🤣🤣🤣