Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that freedom of speech is dead?

98 replies

tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 11:17

AIBU to think that freedom of speech is dead?

Whilst I understand this forum is a "private members club", so to speak, with no obligation to publish any opinion, I have seen many threads deleted recently. I don't personally believe in suppression of debate, even if posts may be deemed "goading" or "inflammatory".

This goes beyond this one forum, however. I'm talking more generally - in both the UK and the world as a whole.
The internet has offered a platform for a diverse range of views, and more opportunity to share them than ever before. But not all views are free to be discussed without censorship, or even legal punishment.
I am personally terrified of "hate speech" laws - is it the job of a government to decide what it's citizens are allowed to say?
In the 21st century, should people be able to be given punitive sanctions against the words they speak?

I'd love an informed and rational debate on this.
Do you think there should be a limit on free speech?
Where would you draw the line if so?
Should the onus be on the speaker not to offend, or the listener not to be offended?
Very interested to hear what people think.

OP posts:
Alison100199 · 08/12/2017 11:24

Totally agree!

araiwa · 08/12/2017 11:25

No limits for me

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 11:27

Maybe we could do this thread in a good old fashioned "props and ops" debate style to keep it civil, as I know people have quite strong views.

Starting with the motion:
This house believes that freedom of speech is dead

Maybe everyone could reply with whether they are for or against the motion, offer a rebuttal to a PP, then add anything extra they wish to say?

OP posts:
SleepingStandingUp · 08/12/2017 11:30

I am personally terrified of "hate speech" laws - is it the job of a government to decide what it's citizens are allowed to say?
Do you think that people who advocate killing people based on their religion, race etc should be given a platform to preace their ideology? That someone who is hugely influential should be allowed to tell people to go out and murder in their Gods name and then we should all have a calm little debate afterwards?

I think some of it has gone too far. Banning speeches at University that might inspire debate but which don't encourage harm to others should ve encouraged

sinceyouask · 08/12/2017 11:32

Do you think there should be a limit on free speech?
Yes.

Where would you draw the line if so?
I'm generally satisfied with the exemptions to freedom of expression that the UK currently has ( wiki link here

Should the onus be on the speaker not to offend, or the listener not to be offended?
Largely, the speaker, although I don't think this question is particularly useful.

araiwa · 08/12/2017 11:32

Someone being offended is a terrible measure of free speech. Some people get offended over ridiculous things. I have the right to say fuck that about anything or anyone

I dont think its dead. Yet

Originalfoogirl · 08/12/2017 11:33

With every freedom comes a responsibility. There are laws against inciting violence and hate crime, and so there should be. I am totally for freedom of speech and fully support someone's right to hold a view no matter how abhorrent I think it is, but there is surely a line which of crossed, should be dealt with. Where to draw that line might be tricky but that shouldn't be a reason not to have it.

QuiteLikely5 · 08/12/2017 11:40

There really is no such thing as free speech- well not unless it is deemed to be within the confines of social norms.

Say anything else and you’ll be shot down!

I commented on a thread a few weeks ago and it was deleted for victim blaming inc a stern warning from MN.

LurkingHusband · 08/12/2017 11:43

Someone being offended is a terrible measure of free speech. Some people get offended over ridiculous things. I have the right to say fuck that about anything or anyone

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 11:48

@sleepingstandingup
I think there's a nuanced difference between incitement and freedom of speech.
I think if someone encouraged someone to murder, and it did occur, then that should be a crime.
There is a clear "but for" link, and the victim has suffered a measurable loss.
If someone, however, encourages a murder that does not occur, then this should be ignored in law.

Under your reasoning, someone who tweets "death to misogynists!" or similar in protest of say, some new legislation, should be equally punished. Would you agree with that?

However, even with incitement included within "freedom of speech", I think I would rather have liberty, with all the dangers that may possess.
I also think that most people (I accept not all) who would kill because someone told them to, would kill regardless. And I'd much rather they stuck their heads above the parapet so we can all see who they are.

OP posts:
RestingGrinchFace · 08/12/2017 11:48

Hate speech laws only really cover incitement to violence in theory but they have been used to censor and exclude speakers with controversial views who do not perpetrate hate speech themselves (but their views often result in others perpetrating hate speech). Howe we this isn't a result of bad laws but incredibly stupid politicians and judges. Hate speech laws, when correctly applied, are a good thing.

As far as freedom of speech goes it's only a problem if you find yourself amongst stupid people. In my circle of acquaintances am I able to say anything that I want as are they, if we disagree we discuss instead of silencing. Unfortunately the quality of education has been so dumbed down that increasingly more and more people are too stupid to reason properly. Understandably if you cannot analyse and break down an argument and someone makes a someone makes a statement that you disagree with but you are more or less powerless to defeat it must be quite scary.

JacquesHammer · 08/12/2017 11:51

YANBU OP.

People regularly seem to conflate "goady fucker" with "I don't agree with your point".

I have done it myself and am trying to be mindful to deal with opinions in a better way.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 08/12/2017 11:56

Totally agree. The world's cracked Its bleeding face. You can't open your mouth

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 11:58

@originalfoogirl
If a line is to be drawn somewhere, then the speech by definition is not "free". You disagree with me and I respect that, but it is disingenuous to suggest you believe in free speech - what you are advocating for is mostly free speech with limitations. That is not freedom.

@sinceyouask it's the "incitement of hatred" that makes me particularly uncomfortable. What is the legal definition of hatred? Stating that, for instance, a certain group may be more statistically disposed to crime could be interpreted as hatred to many. IMO there should not be nuance in law.

A man from Sheffield University was recently expelled from his course for quoting Leviticus directly on his personal Facebook page, to explain his stance against gay marriage.
He took it to the high court and they ruled (and I quote) "[he] is entitled to hold those views, but he is not entitled to express them"

There was no risk of material harm there.

OP posts:
SleepingStandingUp · 08/12/2017 12:01

What GrinchFace said basically.

A tweet saying death to all mysoginists is not the same as giving a person of influence a platform to tell followers to go out and kill all Christians / Muslims / Trump supporters etc and its impossible to prove categorically which of a number of influences would be the final tipping point so by OP's logic they could just carry on preaching hate. There's a blurry bit in the middle no doubt but there is a line imo

araiwa · 08/12/2017 12:03

I know people will hold different opinions to me. If i can give mine, they can give theirs. And i can take the piss out of theirs

I know if i always gave my honest opinion on some posts on mn i would be instabanned though...

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 12:05

(As as aside, can I just say how much I'm enjoying discussing this calmly without everyone making digs and generalisations about each other. Not that I think you should be made by law to refrain from such digs, may I hasten to add Wink.
Thank you for giving me something to think about with rational and insightful posts, it really is refreshing)

OP posts:
bananasaregood · 08/12/2017 12:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 12:13

@sleepingstandingup
I guess that is the crux of our disagreement - I believe they should be free to preach hate, if that's what they choose to do.
On a practical side, silencing people only makes them angrier and more sure in their assertions.
From a philosophical viewpoint, I believe that liberty is worth sacrifice and perhaps less safety.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

OP posts:
MrsDoyleFallingOutTheWindow · 08/12/2017 12:18

It's difficult, isn't it? On the one hand, as a PP says, if someone is going to go out and kill people, they would likely do that anyway. But I do think it's possible to create a culture that makes committing horrific acts acceptable. Obviously you can't do that through speech alone though - you need to have actions leading up to that.

I think on balance the best thing is to argue robustly with people who come out with views you don't agree with. When those spill over into actual physical harm or discrimination, then you can tackle it. But proscribing viewpoints ...? I don't know how helpful that is.

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 12:21

@bananasaregood
I'm forced to disagree with you, and not just because I'm a massive bananaphobe.
You cannot have both "hate speech" laws and freedom of speech. Hate speech is speech. The very definition of freedom is "without limitations". You cannot have it both ways.
You believe hate speech should be punishable by law - this is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

My initial post did say that I understand mumsnet is a privately owned forum and was in no way obliged to publish anything and everything, I must have missed a post where someone purported that this should be the case.
People in this country are being punished by the government by the words they are saying. I'm not quite sure of your argument?
Are you American by any chance, and free of such laws?

OP posts:
MrsDoyleFallingOutTheWindow · 08/12/2017 12:23

Yy bananas - free speech doesn't mean unchallenged speech. You get to say what you want; I get to say what I want in response including disagreeing with you. So if you're a bigot, I'll call you a bigot, because that's what free speech - you know, the thing you're arguing in favour of - is about.

(NB when I say "you" I don't mean "you, bananas".)

Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 12:25

@sleepingstandingup
What if "death to all misogynists" was tweeted by a celebrity, or someone with a popular newspaper column? Would your view change?
Lots of people are highly invested in, and influenced by such people.
I think it's a bit of a moot point to suggest that "death to misogynists" is not capable of inciting violence, when "death to non-believers" or similar is.

OP posts:
Original poster
tendergreenbean · 08/12/2017 12:29

@mrsdoyle
I absolutely think any type of speech should be challenged, that is one of the fundamental facets of free speech. Who is calling "hate speech" to go unchallenged?
Unpunished, yes. Unchallenged, no.

OP posts:
Blink66 · 08/12/2017 12:29

Free speech in my opinion is not dead, but has never been as free as it should be, and has been significantly reduced in the past few decades.

I very much like the two sayings:

  1. Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me
  2. I don’t agree with what you say, but defend your right to say it.

We seem to have become much weaker as a collective, in thinking offence is something that is given rather than taken; and not understanding that whatever someone say, its completely within the control of the recipient what action to take.

So in general am I okay with someone telling people to enact violence - well no, but should it be against the law - no. In the same way, I don’t believe giving someone a knife is illegal, but using it to hurt someone is. The people doing the action are responsible - not the person speaking the words.

Religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs - no special status needed whether one person or one billion believe the words; say them if you must - but equally anyone can ridicule them if they want.

We didn’t have free speech due to blasphemy laws, and legal threats - this had been eroded further. In my opinion its completely fine for people to say anything and this should be protected - it’s up to the listener to decide what to do and investigate and analyse what is being said.