Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 14:40

"I am personally terrified of "hate speech" laws" - why? The only people I know that advocate for legalisation of hate speech are those that are spouting it.

Floisme · 08/12/2017 14:41

Really interesting thread and something I've been thinking about lately. I'm coming round to believing that allowing people to express hateful views does less harm, in the long run than silencing them. I still think boundaries are needed but I'm no longer sure where.

As for posts on here, I challenge but I've never reported. I'm not saying I never would but most of the time, I'd rather leave the twattery up for everyone to see - and that includes twattery directed at me.

Justanotherlurker · 08/12/2017 14:42

freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism

I am frequently in the US a lot, and obviously freedom of speech is much more of a disputed topic than in the UK, I think the above statement is generally used by people who are under the presumption that they are always in the right and it doesn't apply to them, and or the law should not be applied uniformly.

As an example I am currently here in the US and a couple of our interns are knee deep into the intersectionality culture wars that are a thing in the US, yesterday they was discussing how wrong it is for facebook to be banning women because they called men scum.

I haven't looked into it, I just nodded as I've had the whole I cannot be racist because the dictionary definition doesn't apply to me because of my skin tone.

Not sure if this adds anything as I'm just browsing but I think the freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism comment and more times than not no-platforming, restricting of protest etc don't seem to accept that those rules can inevitably be applied to themselves.

Sorry this is just a rant

beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 14:50

I'm coming round to believing that allowing people to express hateful views does less harm, in the long run than silencing them. Id vehemently disagree. Do you really think that without the legal framework that has been put on place, racism would have disappeared? I know what I was subject to throughout the eighties and early 90's when racist abuse was more acceptable and not likely to be legally punished. I dont want a return to that, for me or my children. Afaic, if there was no legal punishment to discriminate these racist views, or to at least keep them from being openly and publicly spouted, then these people would indeed be open and vocal about them.

Floisme · 08/12/2017 14:51

Racism hasn't disappeared.

beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 14:55

no it hasnt, not be a long shot. But at least there are laws in place which punish people who publicly air their racism, especially if it is directed at a victim. To suggest that if we allowed racists to abuse people (which was socially acceptably in the recent past) that it would somehow be good (for who exactly?) in the long run is just fucking mind boggling.

Nancy91 · 08/12/2017 14:55

Freedom of speech is definitely dead. People need to accept that somebody offending you isn't the end of the world!

MuseumOfCurry · 08/12/2017 14:56

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?

This is incitement, and it's illegal outside of the scope of 'hate speech' laws.

beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 14:57

sorry I meant less harmful (to who) as opposed to somehow be good.

MuseumOfCurry · 08/12/2017 14:59

As for people standing outside an abortion clinic shouting at the women going in, well, I'm afraid they have the right to make their views known and long may we protect their rights to be absolute quacks.

JonSnowsWife · 08/12/2017 15:03

But they're not making their views known are they? Well they are, but at the expense of some very vulnerable women. Why does their right to free speech trump the abortion clinics patients right to jot offer them a platform.

With freedom of speech comes the right for people to have the freedom to disagree with your opinion.

The group in question are Christian. Somehow I dont think they'll take kindly to a group setting up alongside them outside the abortion clinic championing atheism. Why is one okay and not the other?

icetip · 08/12/2017 15:03

We should enjoy the absolute freedom to say what we want, but we should be equally open to being potentially punished for the consequences of our words. And ignorance would be no protection.

mirime · 08/12/2017 15:03

But at least there are laws in place which punish people who publicly air their racism, especially if it is directed at a victim.

Assuming someone actually enforces the law.

I worked with someone who was racially abused by her neighbours for months. Eventually the council rehoused her family. So she had to move, the racists suffered no penalty at all.

beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 15:04

People need to accept that somebody offending you isn't the end of the world Yh, i'll tell that to my 7 year old self when I was surrounded by 3 teens telling me I was a dirty chinky cunt, afterall that was their right to express themselves wasnt it Hmm Anyone that argues that people have the right to say things like that are quite frankly wrong.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 08/12/2017 15:05

You have misinterpreted what "free speech" means, for a start. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want. You can't libel or slander people. You can't post offensive or abusive messages. All the above may cause someone harm and distress. It may ruin someone. Free speech DOES exist but quite rightly it exists within certain perimeters.

Also there is a difference between free speech online and free speech face to face. If you post a message on this forum, for example, you are posting that content on to a website that belongs to someone else. Therefore that person has the right to remove your message if they choose.

I don't get what it is you are afraid of? Those who purport to be in favour of "total free speech" would change their tunes pretty quickly if they were slandered, for example.

Reading through your replies again, you have misinterpreted the meaning of "freedom of speech".

MuseumOfCurry · 08/12/2017 15:05

But they're not making their views known are they? Well they are, but at the expense of some very vulnerable women. Why does their right to free speech trump the abortion clinics patients right to jot offer them a platform.

I don't see women having abortions as particularly vulnerable. I've had one, I walked in and skipped out. In any case, there are people who think it's murder and who are we to say that they can't tell me that.

The group in question are Christian. Somehow I dont think they'll take kindly to a group setting up alongside them outside the abortion clinic championing atheism. Why is one okay and not the other?

Who's disagreeing with which?

ShowMePotatoSalad · 08/12/2017 15:06

beardymcbeardy that's terrible, I am so sorry your son (and you) had to endure that kind of abuse. Sad

JonSnowsWife · 08/12/2017 15:07

"women are reduced to tears every day after being forced to 'run the gauntlet'."

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/27/abortion-clinic-ealing-london-buffer-zone-activists-women#img-1

beardymcbeardy · 08/12/2017 15:07

Enforcement of the law is another issue. But its certainly better now than what it was 20 years ago. To suggest we go back to what it was like 20 years ago, and let people have the right to racially abuse ethnic minorities (why exactly, the only justification this thread has given is that is the racist's right?!) is wrong. And thankfully the law agrees, and not likely to take such a regressive step.

JonSnowsWife · 08/12/2017 15:08

Museum read that article if you have time please. There was a 17 year old they tried to talk to. That's not on. They should save their preaching for the pulpit.

MuseumOfCurry · 08/12/2017 15:10

Yh, i'll tell that to my 7 year old self when I was surrounded by 3 teens telling me I was a dirty chinky cunt, afterall that was their right to express themselves wasnt it hmm Anyone that argues that people have the right to say things like that are quite frankly wrong.

Beardy Flowers

I'm white (and old) and I was intimidated much in the same way on the street by a gang of fellows after I'd reported them to the council for not cleaning up after their dog. They were arrested on some other charges relating to intimidation, it was a 'public offence' or similar.

Floisme · 08/12/2017 15:10

To suggest that if we allowed racists to abuse people (which was socially acceptably in the recent past) that it would somehow be good (for who exactly?) in the long run is just fucking mind boggling.

Please read my post properly because I rather object to your saying that. I did not say abusing people was a good thing. I said I thought boundaries were still needed.

I am well aware that expressing hateful opinions can do harm. But I am still coming round to the view that in the long run it does less harm.

LurkingHusband · 08/12/2017 15:10

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.

I can tell you that MNHQ also delete posts they don't like - as they admitted to me when one of my posts went (to a few posters surprise). It hadn't breached any guidelines, but "wasn't really in the spirit".

Arbitrary censorship is a tool of oppression, by the way. If you can't be sure what you write/say is going to lead to jail, you end up censoring yourself and legitimising the status quo.

remember Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

MuseumOfCurry · 08/12/2017 15:11

Museum read that article if you have time please. There was a 17 year old they tried to talk to. That's not on. They should save their preaching for the pulpit.

Will do, thanks for posting.

ShowMePotatoSalad · 08/12/2017 15:12

I can tell you that MNHQ also delete posts they don't like - as they admitted to me when one of my posts went (to a few posters surprise). It hadn't breached any guidelines, but "wasn't really in the spirit".

So? You're posting content on to a site which doesn't belong to you. It belongs to them. Hence they can delete it for any reason they so choose. You're not being suppressed - host your own website if you want your comments to be left alone.