Freedom speech issues

[Prospero]

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...350580926.html

[Ben]

Speaking of freedom of speech. It was ridiculous last year that Canadians tried to stop Ann Coulter from speaking. But then, again, Canada doesn't have freedom of speech.
In Canada, well, the state decides what truth is. And if you go against that, well, you can be charged.
Great thing about being in America: we've got freedom of speech.

[Ben]

[trish]

In Canada, well, the state decides what truth is.

Really? I didn't know that. So every proposed law of physics is brought before the Parliament and then gets signed into law by the Prime Minister? When you exaggerate, it's difficult to know the precise bounds where truth ends and falsehood begins. It was Ann, not the Canadian government, who decided to cancel her Ottawa speech in March of 2010. She surmised that spreading her propaganda wasn't worth the risk of the response it might provoke.

[russtafa]

we have had different people bared from speaking here and i have heard it is worse in the U.K

[robertlouis]

we have had different people bared from speaking here and i have heard it is worse in the U.K

Well yes - we tend not to believe that allowing firebrands on either side of the political spectrum to whip up religious or racial hatred to the extent that it incites violence is actually a public virtue.

Freedom of speech with socially agreed norms of tolerance, fine. Open season for crackpots to yell loud enough to get other people killed, not fine. So for me at least, for "worse", read "better."

I know where I'd rather live.

Oh, and should we check the comparative homicide numbers for the US, Canad and the UK?

Thought not.

[Prospero]

Dutch uphold the rights of their homegrown hater.

http://aljazeera.com/news/europe/201...047349463.html

[Yvonne183]

I'm sory, I got lost for a moment, I thought this was a topic about Femdom.

The main question is who decides what is hate speech and what isn't. This will have different meanings from different people.

It's sort of like the argument about pornography. There must be someone to hear the speech or to view the porn in order to make a ruling if it is bad or not. And if this person can view the porn or read the speech without becoming infected with hate or harm, doing damaging things then why can't everyone behave in the same manor and listen to the speech or view the porn without turning into raving lunatics or sex fiends. Hope that made sense.

[robertlouis]

I'm sory, I got lost for a moment, I thought this was a topic about Femdom.

The main question is who decides what is hate speech and what isn't. This will have different meanings from different people.

It's sort of like the argument about pornography. There must be someone to hear the speech or to view the porn in order to make a ruling if it is bad or not. And if this person can view the porn or read the speech without becoming infected with hate or harm, doing damaging things then why can't everyone behave in the same manor and listen to the speech or view the porn without turning into raving lunatics or sex fiends. Hope that made sense.

It certainly does, Yvonne. And it's a great articulation of the test that's needed to decide what's acceptable and what isn't.

I understand and applaud Americans' loyalty to their constitution, as fine a statement of national values and aspirations as has ever been written, but surely you can see that allowing rabblerousers complete freedom to say whatever they want has caused and will continue to cause problems.

Pastor Jones burns the Quran. He didn't fire the bullets that murdered westerners in Afghanistan later, but he may as well have loaded the fundamentalists' guns for them. Is the right to free speech really worth going to such extremes?

[Prospero]

Freedom of speech in the UK? Hmmmmm... well we have barred quite a few of the more poisonous radical imams (eventually) and stopped the Dutch hatemonger Geert Wlders from coming into the country to show his hateful anti-Muslim film. We do allow parties like the National front and British National Party to exist and march and - if they field enough candidates - have access (limited) to the national broadcast media. But the general view is that they condemn themselves with their cretinous level of politics. The real ugly race hate people exist outside of the framework of politics.

Because of controls on the media - being loosened all the time - we don't have the sort of shock jocks on the radio that the US has nor such bileful characters as Glen Beck of Anne Coulter. (Yet). And Christian fundamentalism of the sort widespread in the US simply has virtually no currency in the UK. The Christian right doesn't exist and Christians managed only a half dozen or so protestors he they staged the musical about that controversial US TV show host (forgot the name) a few years ago. The greater intolerance comes from religious minorities. Sikhs protested and stopped a play denigrating their guru in London a few years back and - of course - sections of the Muslim community are a tinderbox when it comes to perceived insults. it was a british asian writer, Salman Rushdie remember who gained himself a fatwa for his book The Satanic Verses widely perceived by even moderate Muslims as an attack on the prophet.

We also have laws which mean those who discriminate against or insult people on the basis of their gender or religion can be prosecuted.