Do we care about free speech anymore?

[Calmthedrama]

Not exactly an AIBU, but traffic and opinion here is high, so it seems a suitable place to ask big questions.

Personally, I believe people should be able to freely share and voice unpopular and unusual opinions in the public realm (both online, in the media and at public / state institutions like universities etc). This would include allowing so called ‘hate speech’ proponents onto various platforms in society to share their views, even if the many consider these views to be something-ist or something-phobic.

I believe that by shining a light on all views and opinions, we are able to learn from each other and (hopefully) better understand the motivations behind such thinking. This naturally leads to wider debate and promotes deeper thinking as well as a general respect for healthy debate.

It also forces all opinion / activist proponents to make better and more informed arguments and obviously publicly showcases any charlatans / psychopaths for what they are. E.g. if someone can’t provide evidence / make sense when making a case for some extreme opinion, then everyone learns.

I believe that the society wide increase in de-platforming and public ‘cancelling’ of individuals feels a bit like a race to the bottom intelligence wise. It leads us back on a well trodden path to fascism and a place where the ‘thought police’ become a reality.

Do people really understand what free speech means and why it’s so important anymore? Or do we just want to silence people we don’t like / understand / fear etc?

You can be racist, sexist, homophobic as you like. Look at the Golliwog pub that had no action taken against it.

Being offensive is not the same as a criminal offence. Hate crime is not an actual thing, it's an aspect of motivation reflected when you actually are convicted of a criminal offence, which increases your sentence.

Hitler isn't an argument against free speech, he is an argument for all ideas to be freely challenged.

Exactly. Mein Kampf hasn't been banned at all, but I don't think anybody is expecting readers to be leafing through and thinking that it's really good, sensible stuff.

You literally said Hitler’s freedom of speech was not curtailed and look where that ended up. I’m not sure how else you think that could have been understood.

However, inciting violent hatred against people for being Jewish is illegal and literally no-one here is arguing it should not be. Hope that puts your mind at ease.

I don’t fail understand that at all and I am genuinely at a loss as to why think my post suggests I do.

As I said to a pp. inciting violence against ethnic groups etc is illegal and no-one is saying that should change. Hope that helps.

Now please stop using the utterly bogus straw man that those of us who are concerned at a cultural trend not to listen to views you think you disagree with, and to try to stop others from listening them too, want to change the law so that ethnic and other groups get called human viruses who need to be exterminated so that there can be more holocausts in the future.

It’s really not a good faith argument. I’ve been really clear on this thread what my position is so please stop throwing this ridiculous shit at me so that you don’t have to engage with the actual core arguments for free speech.

This was to @Maatandosiris

It's weird that some people saying where do you draw the line are also insisting there is a line and they know where it is

Yes it did prompt a discussion. It’s because people did discuss racist, sexist and homophobic language and attitudes, because we had the freedom to do so, that society moved away from those attitudes and language.

Freedom of speech allows societies to evolve.

if women did not have the freedom to discuss sexism and misogyny we could not have won so much.

Why do you think women’s rights groups are fighting so hard against the silencing that gender ideologues have sought to impose when women speak about how their rights are affected? It’s because we can’t have rights we are not allowed to talk about to defend or win,

@Strawberryboost Well the Home Secretary thinks this precise issue is a problem.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-orders-review-into-political-activism-in-police

”Misgendering” apparently warrants a police visit https://news.sky.com/story/woman-to-be-questioned-by-police-over-claims-she-misgendered-a-trans-woman-11670756

If your a pensioner with a sticker saying keep men out of women’s spaces this also warrants a police visit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12475885/Suella-Braverman-pensioner-trans-gender-police-sticker.html

and as I mentioned it’s not just laws curtailing free speech, it is the rules set by social media, employers, groups, private business, websites etc which cause a problem

It depends what people want to say.I don't support any speech that is racist, homophobic, or sexist, anything that incites violence or anything that is obviously untrueThere are more important values than free speech. I don't want to live in a society where people can say whatever they want whatever the consequences

Ok, if I go by your list,
Males claiming to be women is both sexist and obviously untrue.
Males claiming to be lesbians is sexist, homophobic, and obviously untrue.
Males claiming they are a type of women just like black women are a type of women is racist, sexist and obviously untrue.

Male transactivists regularly invite violence against women who disagree with the absolute batshit that is gender identity ideology. Punch a terf anyone?
As well as sending rape and death threats. (Very ladylike eh) JKR alone received thousands.

Yet these men want us punished for saying perfectly reasonable, normal, rational things such as;

Women don't have penises,
or
Lesbians are same sex attracted females, or
Gender identity ideology should not be being taught in schools as fact
or
Female only spaces, sports and services are perfectly legal and absolutely necessary.

So whose speech do you want to control?

Mine? Because TRA's claim those normal things I've said cause them emotional damage? Because that's what is happening to women.

Whatsnewpussyhat

Excellent summing up there.

Like the people who say "I'm tolerant of everything except intolerance!!!!" and genuinely think that it's hidden wisdom, when it's actually pure manifest nonsensical babble.

The first news article

Ms Green told Sky News that although misgendering is offensive and serious, she also took action because Ms Farrow had levelled more serious allegations at her.

the second news article

The police log, which she obtained via a data access request, stated that they had given her 'words of advice . . . regards the harassment and alarm that this sticker could potentially cause to the community'. ie advising a pensioner who may be vulnerable that the sticker may cause problems for her amongst others and they want to protect her from that possibility

the devil is in the detail

You asked “What could you say that would result in Police turning up at your house? “

I showed you some examples of that happening. Where police had turned up at someone’s house.

The devil is not always in the detail, sometimes it’s blatantly obvious and simple.

To most decent people in this country, a visit from the police is intimidating. I for one wouldn't accept 'advice' from a police officer on a visit to my home over my expressed opinions and would consider it a massive overreach.

On your first example they were likely more interested in the “other more serious allegations” the person made

in the second - it seemed to me the police were advising a vulnerable about the possible local consequences of her sticker

My brother lives on the street that leads up to a football stadium.

On match days with a particular away team. the police visit his neighbour because he waves a big sign about a potentially inflammatory issue to this particular team.

This neighbour has every right to do so. The police advise against for the sake of avoiding potential conflict

The devil is not always in the detail, sometimes it’s blatantly obvious and simple.

what are the “more serious allegations” then that are referred to?

in the second - it seemed to me the police were advising a vulnerable about the possible local consequences of her sticker

What, like the threat of actual violence by violent, angry male transactivists?

Are you going to respond to my last post Strawberryboost? Or are those things that are racist, sexist, homophobic and obviously untrue to be ignored because the claims of 'transphobia' apparently override all the rest?

What was your last post? Yes I did miss

To be clear

I do NOT want an extension to restrictions around free speech!!

but I do not agree with the PP stance she she is an absolutist that thinks there should be absolutely no restrictions whatsoever around free speech

It's on this page. Just scroll up.

Later

school run and then work

I agree that it is sinister. But the police have always enjoyed telling people to be quiet, and opposing certain elements is just what they like. Preferably a student, woman, or some other individual who is not going to be much of a physical threat.

@Anxioys I see what you're saying, but I think we all know that there is a difference between these two situations, but I'm not I am not gifted enough to articulate it:

1. Rangers football fans singing sectarian songs in a Celtic pub an hour before kick off. Police advise they stop and go to another pub.
2. A person responding to a twitter thread to explain that a prominent trans activist is not a woman as claimed as they were born a man. Police advise that this may be constituted as hate and that feelings will be hurt.

Advice in scenario 1 aims to avoid imminent violence and is very prudent. Scenario 2 is an attempt to curtail freedom of expression and protect the feelings of one side of a debate.

Well it’s very clear what the other allegations were non of which were factually inaccurate- it merely involved hurt feelings. To me a male child will always be a son. Performing an operation on a 16 year old (on the day they turn 16) to get rid of their balls and inversion of their penis is castration, mutilation is the removal destruction or severe damage to a bodily part. A 16 year old is legally a minor- often referred to as a child. It’s clear legally nothing was wrong (the real reason the complaint was withdrawn). It was a statement of facts. Basically a police investigation was launched over someone’s hurt feelings.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/20/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman

It is also clear that The original accuser withdrew their statement eventually.

in the second story it is clear that the accusation was politically motivated. I find it offensive that men keep spouting on about rape victims should adjust their attitude so they will share their rape stories with men and accommodation with men, that they should get naked in a changing room with men highly offensive and hateful, would the police follow up my accusations of hate crime against women with these men? We all know the answer is no. Did the police advice the accusers to take down the poster as it was the instigator of the trouble?

Your scenario of the football sign is akin to the poster not the sticker, even if the woman did put the sticker there it was in response to provocation. Why did the police only offer “advice” to the old woman? Why do the LGBT group get to make their point and not the woman. The police visit people to make sure they don’t do something again.

I really don’t see what’s hard to grasp on this?