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.

What nonsense LurkingHusband. 'Not really in the spirit' is still a @MNHQ guideline as far as I'm concerned.

You do have freedom of speech. Just @MNHQ has the freedom to decide which they're going to allow a platform too. That's their freedom of speech right too.
If you don't like the rules you can go on another forum with laxer rules and post what you like. This isn't North Korea.

All this "we don't have freedom of speech" stuff is just embarrassing. We have the freedom to say what we want online, you're only dragged in to a cop shop when you've breached certain laws. we can marry who we want, practice what religion we want, send our children to school, all without fear of consequence. Freedom of speech is not so easily afforded in other parts of the world.

you're only dragged in to a cop shop when you've breached certain laws.

To be fair there is the guy who was arrested for teaching his pug to do the Nazi salute, which however you try and spin it, was nothing more than a bad taste joke.

Mumsnet has, to my absolute astonishment (and gratitude) been one of the forums which doesn't needlessly censor debate. The MN mods let debate and discussion happen here which would be deleted on many other forums which regard themselves as "cooler" and "edgier" than Mumsnet.

It's been amazing.

MuseumOfCurry thanks for the flowers that was one particularly bad incident that affected me for many years. sticks and stones is a load of shite. There are only one group of people who will fight for the right to say such things, or supposedly on behalf of others to say such things. Racists.

Floisme can you please explain less harm? Less harm to who? Not to the victims who are subject to such hate speech. Not to the victims of the people who are incited by such hate speech. Not to the society as a whole who would condone such hate speech. (And by simply allowing it, society would be condoning it).

Freedom of speech is not freedom from censure. You seem confused about the central definitions in your post.

All this "we don't have freedom of speech" stuff is just embarrassing. This absolutely. Its just people stomping their feet because they want to air offensive/hateful/racist views with impunity.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from censure

Perfectly put.

Sorry, but MNers are the worst people to have a debate about "free speech". The hypocrisy is quite startling.

We have laws against inciting violence so no one is free to stand up and scream 'death to XYX". Actually, there are quite a few laws curtailing truly free speech.

No, the real problem is censorship by stealth - which is operated by the members of this site every damn day.

During the election & referendum it was literally impossible to have a sensible debate - odd for a site that boasts about the intelligence of it's members (ha!). People were called cunts and goady fuckers (the most childish & pathetic of all the MN phrases) for simply having a different view...on top of the attempts to shame people into submission by yelling 'racist" and "misogynist" at every available opportunity.

It would be nice to believe that, if nothing else, all of this was born of passion for the cause but, in fact, it's not...it's simply people showing off to each other. Without question there is a hive mind mentality on here and a bunch of sheep bleating out their learned "opinions" to try and earn their MN stripes.....have a biscuit OP, ODFOD, goady fucker...look everyone, I think just like you!

And to the poster upthread who pointed out that no one is entitled to be given a platform by anyone else...quite right. But nevertheless we really should be concerned when there's a denial of a platform simply because a group (often students, worryingly) can't cope with hearing views that differ from their own. Germaine Greer being banned from a university was an extremely shocking event and a very shameful one.

Yes, the notion of being entitled to an opinion and sharing it...the only defintion of free speech that applies to most of us most of the time...is dying, largely thanks to a bunch of stealth braggers desperate to earn themselves a bit of online validation by calling other people names. The R word, for example, is fast becoming almost meaningless due to misuse. What's the fastest and most effective way of proving that you're not a racist? By calling someone else one...usually wrongly, on here.

It's all quite sickening, actually, and this site hosts some of the very worst offenders.

There are only one group of people who will fight for the right to say such things, or supposedly on behalf of others to say such things. Racists.

Beardy as I alluded to previously, I think what you experienced (although it was racially motivated, and by any yardstick despicable) was intimidation. My understanding is that this is illegal even in the absence of hate laws. No one is fighting for anyone's right to harass you on the street.

As a civil libertarian, I'm not comfortable with banning racial slurs, but I think it makes sense that the constitute an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime (such as intimidation).

beardy by less harm, I'm thinking of the Brexit fuckup, of Trump, of the rise of the far right.

Germaine Greer being 'no platformed' is another example.

The problem of not being allowed to express ones opinions on "sensitive subjects" such as race, religion or womans rights or abortions, ...is that the hard core people will move underground, and there they are much more difficult to "police" and will have far more of an attraction to some individuals. And it does come with a higher level of violence as there is a higher perception of the need defend oneself.

*Fredom of speech is not freedom from censure
*
Indeed not. But how that censure takes effect matters. Strong arguments against a POV...fine. Shaming people with pronouncements about their moral character...not fine.

And what Ylvamoon says.

Thankyou beardy.

the hardcore people already move underground. The only reason society would want them in the open is so they can be identified and prosecuted accordingly. If you legalise what they are doing, then they will come into the open, spout and incite with their hateful views, and then what? They cant be prosecuted because they aren't doing anything illegal. You've just given them the freedom to reach/manipulate more people. There will always be people who have hateful thoughts. Decent society doesn't legitimise them though. Im not convinced that there would be less violence if they could openly express their views, I think the opposite is more likely.

We'll have to disagree then.

The problem of not being allowed to express ones opinions on "sensitive subjects" such as race, religion or womans rights or abortions, ...is that the hard core people will move underground,

It also feeds into the they don't want you to know 'the truth' allure of forbidden knowledge.

Museum it could be considered intimidation because there were 3 of them and only 1 of me and they were older. However on that basis if another adult were to say that to me now, i wouldnt feel intimidated, and if 'free speech' were a thing as suggested by this thread, they'd be quite within their right to say that to me. Id still be against that. People dont have the right to spout such things without legal punishment.

It also feeds into the they don't want you to know 'the truth' allure of forbidden knowledge.

No it doesn't. It means they simply disagree with you. Freedom of speech works both ways. With the right to express your opinion comes someone else's right to disagree with that opinion.

Free speech died ages ago. MN deletes and bans any posters who expresses views that offend anyone. Universities no platform speakers. Religions stop free speech using violence. The professionally offended try to shut down newspapers by blackmailing advertisers. And precious snowflakes are offended at everything. RIP

. MN deletes and bans any posters who expresses views that offend anyone

They really don't. Those of us who are a bit long in the tooth have witnessed some pretty questionable threads stand.

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 was expelled because he was studying to become a social worker, and such views would be incompatible with that role, and make it impossible to do such a job without prejudice. If he'd expressed the same views on a different course he would still be studying. I'm studying at Sheffield at the moment - there are couple of racist, homophobic misogynists on my course, they're still there and no one has made any attempt to remove them.