Free Speech

[SwirlyGates]

A lot of the issues on this forum are about not just the decimation of women's rights, but the right to say what we think, to stand up for our rights in public, whether at work or amongst friends, and to have these views aired in the media without cries of "transphobia" and attempts to shut us down. Even worse, people are getting arrested, fined, even put in prison just for saying that trans-identifying men are men.

But a few years ago I complained to a local radio station after the presenter said, "Well, maybe Enoch Powell was right."

I'm trying to get my thoughts straight about this, and I'd like to know your opinions.

I think the main issue for me was that the Enoch Powell lover was just presenting a normal radio show, with songs and ads, and he just threw this in as a random opinion. I would have no problem with a discussion of Enoch Powell's views - in fact, I seem to recall there was a TV programme about him recently, in which they condemned him but said his opinions were too horrendous to repeat, and I thought this was ludicrous. Surely, if you're going to condemn someone, you have to be able to say why.

What do you think? Is there a time or a place when free speech is not acceptable? (I'm not talking about inciting violence, but stating views.) If so, what are the limits?

The condition of free speech should be that the speaker has to explain their position!

Free speech means that we can say what we want, any time we want without threat from the state.

If the state can punish people for what we say, how can it be free speech? The state will be monitoring what we say, and if we say the wrong thing fining or imprisoning us.

Thats not free speech. There will be times we cannot say what we think because of state consequences.

So the idea that we can have free speech 'with consequences' is not true. The 'with consequences' is a big deal.

In the current political climate, it doesn't have to be death threats, it can be using certain language to describe other people, criticism of institutions, harmless tweets (Harry the Owl, Kate Scottow, Graeme Linehan and many others), comments on Facebook etc. We have two tier policing, where a woman is sentenced to three years for tweeting, whilst a Labour councillor, using a megaphone in front of a large crowd, incites them to cut the throats of right wing people and is let off any punishment.
It is quite clear that we do not have freedom of speech in this country.

I think that's very helpful, and brings to mind some of the recent concerning events, including Lucy Connelly, Graham Linehan, the Swiss guy Emanuel Brünisholz facing jail for misgendering, the couple who criticised their school in a WhatsApp.

Actually I like this one. Not workable on a day-to-day basis I suppose.

Yes, the Graham Linehan tweet comes to mind. “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

Ignoring whether it's humour or not, I'd say it's not even a threat of violence per se, but using violence in defence as a last resort.

And we're back to two-tier policing again. Why have all the men threatening rape or death to gender-critical women not been arrested?

If you go out screaming about lynching a minority and calling for subversion of the state, yes, you should be prosecuted by the state. Your stance reminds me of Joe Rogan bros and Tommy groupies arguements.

Free Speech doesn't exist in the UK if you have the wrong opinions.

There were around 12,000 arrests last year for online "speech crimes," and the vast majority were for a slur on a group with a protected characteristic,

i.e. the woman who said her alledged attacker who hospitalised her in a fight was a f*t - a slur for a gay man, 8 officers arrested her by entering her home while she was taking a bath and marching in on her, the man was not even investigated.
Bare in mind if she had used a different slur, called him a b or a c** then that would have been just fine and she would not have had to go to court or serve a 20hr community service order and get a criminal record.

Graham Linhan was arrested for comments that he made while in America and said that the last 6 years he has never not been under litigation, and that police were captured and have been used to fight ideological battles, and that he has had to move “so far away from all these nut-jobs who have the police wrapped around their finger”, and added: “I don’t think I’ll ever come back to Britain.”

More recent erosion of free speech:

The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act, which proposed fines for universities failing to uphold freedom of speech, was passed under the previous, Conservative government in 2023, this was dropped when Labour came in.

Labour want to abolish jury trials for less serious cases which have been held for 800 years.

Labour want to bring in an Islamophobia law to curtail free speech about Islam. This is sure to bring critics of Islam into the judicial system.

Labour want to bring in digital ID

Increase of Facial Recognition Technology: There is a consultation for a new legal framework for law enforcement's use of biometrics and facial recognition technology. The use of live facial recognition by police has been increasing, reducing civil liberties

interview with girl arrested for saying f**t

And is that free speech?

If people are not free to say anything they want, they do not have free speech.

I dont know where the line should be around speech, but its delusional to say we have free speech while having things we cannot say.

That's a rather weasel view. remember the state chooses the consequences.

Shame that the 9 o'clock mockery didn't use their real accents, the Frost interview showed it was ordinary people standing up to Moseley. Some people might note the ironic juxtaposition of accent and news source, some might go away muttering about gammons and flag shaggers.

Still, punk pastiche innit.

Absolutely.

Love your user name. Operation let them speak indeed.