AIBU to think that freedom of speech is dead?

[tendergreenbean]

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.

@blink66
You've put what I wanted to say much more succinctly that I have!

"I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" is one of my favourites too.

This goes beyond this one forum, however. I'm talking more generally - in both the UK and the world as a whole.

You’re lumping a lot of broad things under one banner there. Bear in mind that if you’re in the U.K., you live in one of the freest countries of the world in terms of what you can say.

I think our cultural views over allowable speech can be off-kilter and a fuzzy understanding of what harm speech can and can’t do leads to some weird conclusions (eg, no-platforming feminists). But this is nothing like the restriction on speech you’d face as an investigative journalist in Russia, or a gay rights campaigner in Saudi Arabia, or a political dissident in Turkmenistan. I’m sure that having Mumsnet threads deleted is disappointing, but it’s hardly the same as facing imprisonment, torture and death.

Freedom of speech means that your government can't imprison you (etc) for what you say.

It doesn't mean that others have to tolerate what you're saying. Especially if someone is espousing shitty or harmful views.

Freedom of speech means that your government can't imprison you (etc) for what you say

But you can be imprisoned, well at least charged with criminal offences in this country for what you say/type.

I'm in agreement with OP. I believe in total free speech. Sadly not allowed in England and Wales

NotACleverName

Freedom of speech really means you DO have to tolerate what they're saying - but of course your free to ignore it.

Are you OK with freedom of speech being used as a defence by men and women who stand outside Planned Parenthood and shout abuse at women who are there for healthcare?

Are you OK with freedom of speech being used as a defence by men and women who stand outside Planned Parenthood and shout abuse at women who are there for healthcare?

Yep. But I'd also find it acceptable if a counter protest group did the same outside their churches

Are you OK with freedom of speech being used as a defence by men and women who stand outside Planned Parenthood and shout abuse at women who are there for healthcare?

Yes - but clearly they will face strong ridicule and it is likely their employers may choose to no longer associate with them. Remember, although free speech means the government cannot suppress their views, it doesn't mean others can't choose to not associate with them and take legal actions base don those expressed views.

Are you OK with freedom of speech being used as a defence by men and women who stand outside Planned Parenthood and shout abuse at women who are there for healthcare?

Behaviour in public is already covered by any number of laws about harassment, and assault which mitigates freedom of speech.

And yet despite there being laws about harassment and assault (which apparently they have not broken), and despite it being embarrassing (but actually among their ilk they are celebrated), and despite the fact that potentially they could be fired for it (if they had a job), they still do it, because the freedom of speech laws protect their right to do so.

It's very current round here, as it's about to go to the state Supreme Court.

In the case of threads being deleted on here, apart from those identified as being by trolls which probably should be deleted or PBP, the vast majority are deleted because the OP has exercised her freedom of speech by creating the thread, then doesn't like the replies, flounces off and demands the thread be deleted. The deletion message often says something like, concern over too much RL info which in the majority of cases is bullshit as no RL info has been given. It's MNHQ now pandering to the flouncers which is a recent thing.

@bealert
Yes, I am.
In the minds of those protesters (who I believe are being unkind and cruel, but not acting in a way that should be punishable by law) those women are not simply accessing health care.
They have a different view and should be allowed to express it to whomever they like.

The same as protesters can stand outside Berkeley and shout abuse at speakers who are trying to voice arguments they disagree with, and students who want to listen to those views.
Those students may not be as vulnerable as some parents at planned parenthood, but feelings should not be defended in law.
If their hurt requires punitive retribution, then what makes that hurt unique? Should we also imprison or fine every cheating partner who has devastated their family etc etc.
Arguably, a cheating partner has acted as well as spoken in a way that causes harm, so should be even more punished.
I wouldn't like a world where that was the case.

I perhaps haven't been clear, my reference to this forum was only an observation that many people here, by reporting threads, were expressing a desire to silence dissenting opinions.
Mumsnet can delete what they like, that is their freedom.

In the minds of those protesters (who I believe are being unkind and cruel, but not acting in a way that should be punishable by law) those women are not simply accessing health care.

In their minds I'm sure they believe women are all there for abortions, even though abortions are not even offered in that PP office - just healthcare.

I guess in a civil sense adultery can cause financial loss, as more money is likely to go to the non-cheating partner, I should add.
I'm talking about criminal courts prescribing punitive action, not civil courts awarding damages.

@bealert then they'll look stupid for not researching their protest venue and will have no meaningful effect.

Also, to some using contraception is a sin and they genuinely object to the companies that provide it, who in their mind are damaging the mortal souls of those that come to obtain it.
One mans healthcare is another's "devil in action". We can laugh at their views and ridicule them, meet them face to face and counter their protest with facts, but we shouldn't silence them.

Generally speaking , I find people's tolerance for free hate speech inversely proportional to how likely they are to be on the receiving end of it.

Yep and ironically it has been bludgeoned to death by the liberal left

@bealert then they'll look stupid for not researching their protest venue and will have no meaningful effect.

It's not really relevant whether they look stupid or not.

Women who can't afford to see a doctor elsewhere still have to walk past them and be screamed at and called whores in order to get things like mammograms and smears and basic healthcare.

Thanks for the very interesting thread, tendergreenbean

On this:

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.

I don't think it's the same thing at all. There's not (as far as I'm aware) a cultural narrative about it being legitimate to kill misogynists, there's not a series of incidents in which people have been killed because they are misogynists (quite the reverse,in fact). There are sub-cultures of sub-cultures where killing unbelievers is seen as legitimate, there are incidents where people are killed because they are unbelievers. That's the difference between the two things: the 'tipping point' into killing someone is closer for unbelievers than for misogynists.

To my mind, it's like the debate about whether a BME person can be racist towards a white one. My understanding is that this isn't possible, because racism is a product of historic power structures. BME people can discriminate against white people, but it's not racism. Idiots on twitter can declare 'death to the whatever' but it's not hate speech because there's no underlying social structure that validates that viewpoint.

In general I'm with you, I don't think that anyone gets anywhere by shutting down unpopular views (and I've been shut down in my time, it still rankles). But I think it's important to say that words have consequences and in some cases those consequences will be bigger than others - so it's right that we, as a society, should think about what consequences we apply to someone who speaks more risky words. Rational argument will always be my preferred option, but I don't think we should rule out more punitive measures where the infringement is repeated or has a more severe outcome.

If the only material consequence of free speech was 'I feel offended', there wouldn't really be a problem. The problem for me, is that speech can and does incite and promote violence with severe consequences to society - we have centuries of clear evidence, too much evidence, in the form of a trail of corpses, that hate speech is strongly linked to hate crimes. The verbal expression of hate in society is a precondition for hate based violence.

So you can make speech completely free - but if you do so, the law ultimately values human speech over human life.

Also, free speech isn't just about hate speech laws. Completely free speech with no limitation would also mean it would be (legally) okay to commit perjury and slander. I can't see that there would be any mechanisms to force companies to withdraw harmful false advertising etc.

Would you want to make perjury legal out of interest OP?
Should Tobacco companies be allowed to aggressively market claims that smoking is beneficial to health and scientists are lying bastards, even if we end up with loads of evidence that this is increasing lung cancer rates massively?

I think it's an interesting debate provided you're in the privileged position of not being on the receiving end of the resulting violence or slander

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.

Well, that's a valid concern, and I don't have a neat answer for you, as I suspect there isn't one. That said, I think "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace" should be banned, as the right of people to go about their business without being harassed, alarmed or distressed is far more important than the rights of others to harass, alarm or distress them. I think it's OK for someone to say "I think abortion is wrong, I would like abortion to be illegal, I will vote for candidates who seek to outlaw abortion, I would never have an abortion, abortion is a sin in the eyes of my religion". I don't think their right to say that extends to a right for them to protest, in any way, outside an abortion clinic.

@BeAlert and other vulnerable people in society get shouted at and called all sorts of things because people don't agree with their views.
Being called names is a sad, but necessary, side effect of liberty.
They can shout back.

As a PP said, offence is taken not given.

YABMU. I think laws are fine as they are, and would be quite happy for them to be tightened up too probably. Tbh all i hear you saying is that you think people should have the right to scream racial abuse at me because that is their 'right' and my only recourse is to shout back? Coming from an ethinic minority, I think I'll pass.

I don't personally believe in suppression of debate, even if posts may be deemed "goading" or "inflammatory".

Deleting posts for being goady or inflammatory is not 'suppressing' debate. It is breaching Talk Guidelines set by @MNHQ which you agree to when you register with this site. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Basically. Don't be a twat and you're (the collective you) unlikely to be deleted.

Blink66

1. Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me

That's not true though is it, or verbal abuse wouldn't be a thing.

And there have to be some limits - for example, should freedom of speech come before someones right to a fair trial?