Freedom of speech

[puzzleduck]

Did anyone see BB last night?

I dont know their names but a man was telling a woman that he didnt agree with people being Gay because its written in the Bible that its not allowed. He got a verbal warning from BB for this conversation.
AIBU to think that we have freedom of speech in this country and as he was only stating that HE didnt agree with it they should not have given him a VW.

So presumed educated and / or intelligent can benefit from free speech and open discussion but BB watchers must be protected? This is the kind of thinking behind the vote being denied working class people and women.

I was expanding my previous point re: 'indirect' harm. I am assuming (yes, assuming) that the watchers of QT have a healthy interest in politics and probably some very established personal positions. I do not think the watchers of BB do so to expand their political horizons (it's not the purpose of it). I have said nothing about the relative intelligence or education of BB watchers. I merely suggested that the audience may tend to be younger than that watching QT and therefore more susceptible to influence by the celebrities that are currently being paraded on there and the bile that they may spout.

Thus, perhaps the extent of 'indirect' harm - the incitement aspect, the encouragement of others to take on and repeat your opinions - might be larger with BB than with QT?

You think young people are less able to think critically?

Most young people seem pretty clued-up in my experience.

Maid - sorry if I misunderstood you / your context.

But in the end it boils down to pretty much the same thing - a reason why some audiences can be trusted to be exposed to free speech and thus free speech is 'safer' in that context.

Esp in special cases like BB audiences

Whereas I think the principle of free speech is absolute.

I'm inclined to think that MaidOfStars surmises about the audience are off track - I doubt that had much to do with the decision to warn against continuing the conversation. There's been shit hitting the fan before in BB, they wouldn't know where this would go next - how the other 'celebs' would react (whether disagreeing or not - I've no idea who they were) - Just not a direction they'd want to allow the program to go down.

Whereas I think the principle of free speech is absolute

Agree. See my previous posts .

Errol, perhaps, was just musing....you suggested it first though!

Maids - oh, right! Lost track of who said what earlier in the thread.

Errol, perhaps, was just musing....you suggested it first though!
No I didn't! I was thinking about the nature of the program and the participants. Serious discussion type thing versus reality tv entertainment.

I have read the bible. It seems to me it is anti homosexuality and pro slavery. Yet we allow this abhorrent book to be taught in our schools but don't want some of its content mentioned on BB because the plebs don't understand.

The conversation should have been allowed to take place. The girl knew it was a taboo subject and declined to engage in conversation. Had she been able to speak freely maybe she could have changed his mind or at least opened it to the idea that people are different.
By BB not allowing the conversation to take place and by showing Holyfields comments Chanel 5 are in the wrong. Why did they not just cut the whole section out? None of us would be the wiser.
I believe in the fight to have dialog between people with opposing views. How on earth will anything change if you cant discuss it?

Right not fight

It's a commercial venture

Channel 5 are not the Government restricting people's freedom of speech.

They have the right to stop soneone upsetting their viewers.

Many people would switch off a programme filled with hate speech.

Its not in their interests as programme makers and businessmen.

Which is fair enough.

Many people would switch off a programme filled with hate speech.

Its not in their interests as programme makers and businessmen.

Which is fair enough.

This isn't a legal problem so much as a capitalism problem. Private companies can be more repressive of freedom of expression than even the law allows based on a canny calculation of whether what is being said is going to cost or profit them.

We don't have a freedom of speech trumps other rights' system (whether under English or European law) and I think that is basically right, but really this is not about the law.

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. Particularly racist, homophobic and disablist remarks are frowned upon.

However people can say almost what they want in a sexist manner and will be very unlucky if anything is ever done/said about it.

And I'm guessing the producers of BB deliberately picked a strongly religious housemate to spark off comments like this with other guests, and then to self righteously censor it and cream off the publicity at the same time.

We have a qualified, not absolute, right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:

"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

1. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

The fact that 'racist, homophobic and disablist remarks are frowned upon' doesn't mean we don't have free speech. In fact part of that free speech is my right to say I don't like racists and homophobes etc.

Free Speech doesn't mean that everything you say is acceptable. It just means it is legal.