What's more important, freedom of expression or women's rights?

I'm all for liberal censorship.

The law can act as a motivator to change society generally and improve life for lots of people.

For instance, the laws around what you can and can't say and do at work - for example racist language or sexist put-downs in the workplace are illegal and more to the point they are no longer acceptable.

Similarly shouting abuse at someone on the street because they are gay or Muslim is (probably?) illegal and more to the point is not considered socialy acceptable by the majority of people.

All of this is reflected in much of our media as well which informs peopls' thinking around "norms".

So while hardcore racists and homophobes for eg will not change their views, they know better than to air the more extreme ones in public and really upset/anger loads of non white / gay people, which is going to be better for those people in their daily lives. And the majority of "normal" people have moved from thinking that there's nothing wrong with a spot of racism / homophobia and look it's a main joke in loads of TV shows, to thinking no that's not on really.

Obviously nothing's perfect yet and there are still plenty of bigots out there but things are better than they were and improving I think. I hope that teh situation for sexist abuse etc will catch up soon

Oh and free speech my arse. Whenever you get a group, especially women, getting some more freedom afforded to them in society - eg freedom from having their arse grabbed so often or freedom from explicit "banter" in the workplace, you get mainly men going snoffair it's just a bit of fun what's her problem you're taking my freedoms away.

This is absolutely not a free speech issue.

You cannot hide behind free speech principles when you are inciting others to commit violent crimes. That is not what free speech is there to protect.

You have the freedom to think whatever you like, you don't and shouldn't have the freedom to make large sums of money from teaching other losers men how to rape and emotionally abuse women. In the same way as you don't and shouldn't have the freedom to racially abuse people or incite people to terrorist acts.

With rights come responsibilities, if you can't be trusted to exercise your rights responsibly, then it reasonable for those rights to be restricted.

I don't think you can actually have freedom of expression until women's rights are fully realized. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech are about exercising agency and thought and we can't really do that when women are stifled and silenced.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have freedom to have thoughts and discuss things but while those discussion are held public it is only the powerful and strong that get heard. We need to both protect those without the power and access to to use thier voice and also work to give them a voice.

But prashad, a person who persuades someone else to commit a crime is just as culpable as the person who actually committed the crime. Someone who pays a hitman is guilty of murder/conspiracy to commit murder, as is a person who manipulates someone to commit murder using non-financial means. Charles Manson never actually killed anyone himself (as far as we know) but he is serving life in jail (and was originally sentenced to death) because he persuaded his followers to commit murder.

JB surely knows that the things he says will lead to some men assaulting women and as such he should be held accountable by law in the same way as Charles Manson was.

There's a world of difference between freedom of expression and a platform for expression. We should have as few punishments as possible for what people say. Incitement to violence, or threats or blackmail or lots of other things are illegal already. Those are different from honestly held opinions.

The problem with criminalising bigotry is that it makes it far harder to challenge. If people secretly hold sexist or racist views then how can you try to challenge them or persuade them they are wrong. It's far better in my view to allow people to say what they really think. Has racism disappeared because racist language is criminal? Not at all. Look at the 'immigration' debate. It's a veil for some people's racism. All that's happened is that the language has changed - the sentiments remain the same.

That's not the same thing at all as allowing people to have a platform to propagate their views. Dapper Laughs shouldn't be sent to jail for making crass, sexist, tasteless jokes but why should he be allowed to make them on TV, or on stage unchallenged? If a chorus of people shout him down, or criticise him or his backers, there's nothing wrong with that, and his freedom of speech is not being interfered with. He can still say what he wants.

freedom of expression, obviously

everything is more important than women's rights, with possible exception of women in Other Places who Have It Worse

Buffy....

Yes, I would argue against Abu Hamza's arrest.

There are obviously limits to freedom of speech... Direct threats, calling in bomb scares, etc. But other than that I think we've veered too far towards censorship in this country.

I said on another thread about JB that if you replaced the word "woman" with e.g. "black person" or "muslim" then he would be quite rightly arrested for hate crimes. I'm sure that he's responsible for numerous sexual and physical assaults against women by men who have been inspired by his seminars. Hopefully a prosecutor or detective somewhere will have the time and inclination to cross reference men who have attended his talks with violent crimes against women and will be able to bring a case against him.

Of course it's freedom of expression even if you can be jailed for it!

Just look at what journalists who actually need these laws put up with in countries where they don't have them!

People are held responsible for their own actions and that includes their own negligence. If I tell someone that it's OK to wire up a plug socket in a dangerous manner, and that plug socket hurts them, both I and the person who did it is in trouble. If I whip up a mob into a frenzy and they riot, then of course I should be punished too. How about a bomb threat? No harm to anyone yet I'm going to be having some words with a judge if I exercise my freedom of speech to call one in.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone is free to say whatever they like, and shouldn't be punished if people come to harm because of it?

Lurcio...

Nowhere have I said that it's right for women to be threatened with violence or rape for expressing their views. Please don't put words in my mouth.

There's a distinct difference being making a threat, and making sexism the content of a performance.

What about women's freedom of speech, Prashad? You seem very invested in defending the rights of men to threaten violence and rape to women who disagree with them, but not so much invested in the freedom of those women who are being threatened to air their (usually moderately and politely expressed opinions) without being threatened with violence as a result.

It's not freedom of expression if you can be jailed for your expressions. It makes no sense to say 'freedom of expression, not freedom from the consequences of expression'.

I think the current laws are too restrictive regarding race, religion, etc too.

We can't blame artists and entertainers for other's crimes. It is the individual who chooses. Seems a lot like blaming Marilyn Manson for columbine.

There are objections to films, books, plays and TV programmes evervyear from interest groups and a lot of good stuff wouldn't be made if we get reckless with censorship. It's a slippery slope and I'd rather no censorship at all.

I don't see what's particularly contradictory with freedom of speech and women's rights - it is freedom of speech, not freedom from the consequences of your speech.

So the consequence of Dapper Laughs being a foul, misogynistic ass is that his "comedy" show bombs and his contract doesn't get renewed. The consequence of Julian Blanc teaching men to abuse women is that he gets arrested for inciting people to violence and hate crimes. The fact it is gendered is neither here nor there, he is advocating criminality.

As an aside, most people defending freedom of speech seem completely oblivious to the fact that it is meant give someone the political right to communicate their ideas and opinions without being persecuted by the government as long as they do not break the law themselves. What it doesn't mean is that a single person with particularly vile views, can demand to have their views broadcast in the media without criticism.

Prashad, forgive me, maybe I'm a little jaded by your views on rape, but, did you really mean to say that men who make their living advocating that other men should sexually assault and emotionally abuse women shouldn't be censored because Hitler?

People can say pretty much what they like, and they do, often and loudly. In some ways it helps to differentiate between 'people I wish to speak to or listen to' and 'people I believe to be utter arseholes' in my head. However, that doesn't mean that men who incite others to commit crimes or acts of violence should be given a soap box to stand on.

The man behind the Dapper Laughs character will no doubt come back with a different character and all shall be well, because hopefully his next character won't advocate touching women's 'minges' 'accidentally' as being a joke. I don't think there's much hope though for men who hate women as much as Julien Blanc does.