General Chat

A delicate balancing act, Janey

Educated I may (or may not) be, but I lost my much loved husband to cancer, and I know only too well the seductive power of the "snake oil". When all else failed, beyond any reason, we gave it a go. Of course, it didn't work.

That's no reason, in my view, to not giving it a fair hearing, and letting people who chose to listen, listen and form their own view.

Much better that than driving it underground, where it takes on a sort of cult status,


Sue x
Sue x

Well, that's fine for you, suzian.

Someone with cancer who is perhaps not as educated might be a little more vulnerable. And might die as a result of making the bad choice induced by misleading advertising instead of getting proper medical care that could have saved their life.

I'm not too worried about my freedom of speech or the snake oil seller's, in those circumstances. I don't need to be able to do things that are potentially fatal to other people who might do them, when I'm smart (or rich) enough that I won't. My preference is to protect people in need of protection from genuine harm.

My own view, Janey

Let the snake -oil salesmen say what they will.

And let me have the choice to believe them ...or not


Sue x

Oh my.

There are many things I will not defend to the death people's right to say.

As I mentioned, calling for genocide is one. Also lying in court, counselling the commission of murder, advertising snake oil to cure cancer, and many other forms of speech we *do* prohibit, as I agree we should.

Causing someone hurt feelings isn't generally recognized as a reason to limit someone else's speech.

I was not impressed with the publication of the anti-Muslim Danish cartoons, and can at least see good arguments for them being suppressed. Not because they hurt Muslims' feelings; people with a religion simply do not get to stop other people from expressing opinions about it. But because, in the current climate, cartoons that dishonestly portray Mohamed as a terrorist bomber, for instance, create a climate in which vulnerable people are at greater risk of harm.

As long as pedophiles do not publish child pornography (rightly outlawed, I think) or counsel the commission of crimes against children, or profit from publishing accounts of their crimes (where there are laws against that, which I do support), the mere fact that someone else doesn't like what they say just isn't sufficient reason for banning it.

Now -- calling for a corporation like Facebook to delete material from its website (its property) -- that's a completely different matter, of course.

Anyone can do that; that's their own freedom of speech! And if enough people do it that Facebook decides its business is being damaged by allowing the material to stand, then it will delete it.

We should all just keep in mind that there are people who will not like what we say, either. But I have no problem with private corporations deciding what they will and will not publish!

Hi Janey

We've had a case here where this man shot his girlfriend, killed her boyfriend and shot a policeman in the face, blinding him.

He was finally caught and shot himself

There was a Facebook entry debating the rights and wrongs of this whole sad episode and, broadly, coming down on the side of the man in question

Which was accompanied by cries of "take this site down" - a cry supported by David Cameron

I personally think this is a slippery slope. To quote Voltaire "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Sue x

I believe that you have the right - at least in some countries - to freedom of speech but you must be prepared to take the consequences. "Drawing the line" is a personal limitation. What I may say to someone may be considered rude and unacceptable by others - yet I might not see why the other person is offended.

Sue x

But by praising Moat, the family of the killed and injured were disregarded.
Also, the child he hurt (for which he was put away) - I bet they feel good when people are 'upping' their abuser!!!

There are going to be subjects and views that are beyond the pale.

Should we listen to a paedophile who is explaining that he 'can't help himself' or that 'the kid was asking for it', and agree with him - should he be allowed to set up a website?
No, of course he shouldn't, because his whole aim in life is to satisfy himself with the pain and abuse of others.

Perhaps with responsibility there should also be a degree of mental stability.

Maybe you didn't finish reading the sentence I wrote, maggie. It was:

"... you are entirely *free* to say Hitler was a good man, unless some legitimate law says you may not."

So replying:

"I don't believe you're free, in Germany, to say Hitler was a good man."

doesn't really amount to an exchange of views.

The question one might exchange views on would be something like:

"Is it legitimate to outlaw public expressions of approval of Hitler?"

But that wasn't what we were discussing.

My point was that responsibility doesn't "come with" freedom of speech. We may all believe that we have a general responsibility to behave, and not behave, in certain ways towards other individuals and society. But that applies no more or less to speech than to any other behaviour. And it's always just a matter of opinion as to what is "responsible" and what isn't.


suzian, I'm (forgiveably, I hope) not quite catching your drift. I gather there have been calls for suppression of certain speech regarding the Moat affair?

Seems rather foolish to me. There is speech that I'm in favour of suppressing. Calls to genocide broadcast over the radio are a clear example (see Rwanda). Idiots lauding a murderer? Hmm.

Well, that was interesting....

I suppose what I trying to get at is that we put a premium on this country's right to freedom of speech.

Except when the opinions expressed don't happen to be ours - and the internet brings them into the public domain.

Sue x

I don't believe you're free, in Germany, to say Hitler was a good man.

When I said,'With Freedom (or free speech) comes Responsibility', I was referring to personal responsibility.
Most people know where to draw the line, but presume that, using a pseudonym, they can say what they like and not care who they hurt.
I suppose, really, I think manners are involved!!
Would you say this to this person's face?

Just the way I was 'dragged' up!!! LOL

One of the problems of having an Islamic teacher of the Qu'uran for a father!!!

maggie (the agnostic)

But the thing is, maggie, you are entirely *free* to say Hitler was a good man, unless some legitimate law says you may not.

Someone else is entirely free to call Ms X a fascist. Saying it's irresponsible to do so is ... just one's own opinion. ;)

Responsibility doesn't really come with freedom, or vice versa.

Laws can limit the exercise of freedoms, but that's nothing to do with responsibility. It's the proper use of public power to protect others from the consequences of what someone might do.

We can all consider someone "irresponsible" for doing anything at all that we think should not be done, for some reason or other. But we, as a whole, may not limit their freedom to do so without some actual good reason.

With 'Free speech' comes responsbility.
I can say (for example) that Hitler loved art and did some good paintings.
But, even to the most imbecillic mind, for me to say he was a good man is totally irresponsible!
I can say I don't agree with x, but to call her a fascist is irresponsible - to say her views are fascistic is another matter!!
Debate involves a certain amount of subtlety.

I love the two sayings - 'Out of this world' and 'Like nothing on earth'.
Both seem to be saying the same thing, but, we all know they mean the total opposite!!

...or am I too crafty?!!

The Moat appreciation site wasn't exactly a frank expression of views - it was a sort of hysteria for some pathetic (and there is the 'moot' word) example of 'humanity'.
Quite frankly, the sort of 'humanity' I'm glad I've never known.
Yes, he was a sad person - but that doesn't excuse his behaviour.

Ah. Well, it's not as if I've been keeping up with the local news, either. ;) I hate this heat and humidity, I hate this heat and humidity ... brain doesn't work.

Actually, we did see something about the event on TV, but it was kind of out of context so I couldn't quite tell what had happened.

Will have to google it!

Moat is the surname of a chap who shot a couple of people last week and then went on the run Janey. He seems to have become some sort of hero-type on FaceBook. Lord knows why ...

Jill

What is moat appreciation? [headscratch]

What I love is how some people who decide to "debate" think that pretending someone else said things (just horrible awful things!) they didn't say isn't "getting personal".

But hey, that's just me. Well, actually, it's the entire civilized world, but at some times in some places it's just me. ;)


As far as "free speech" -- we do limit various actions, and speech is an action like any other. When the interests of people who might foreseeably be harmed as a result outweigh the interests of the people speaking, it is reasonable to consider limits.


Oh, and I have to be getting home for *supper*!

Fair enough Uzzi. You remind me how good it was to have someone on your side, no matter what! Appreciate it, lady!

Moving on - is the internet the home of free speech? No matter what your views?


Sue x

I do love a good debate as long as it debated, it's one of the few times me and OH can and do differ. Difficullt to have a difference of opinion and then cuddle but we do.

I will say when we fight, it;s evil and we both cry in the end.. But that's just us.
I would hate it if I couldn't exchange views and come out of the end (with anybody) as friends.

Of course I was referring to the latter, Maggie - as you probably guessed!

I'm not sure when a frank exchange of views becomes a mental aberration - or in who's opinion

And, as for people hiding behind a pseudonym, well, all I can say, this site isn't exactly lilly white in that regard.......

Either the internet is home for people to say what they think - or it isn't.

What do you think?

Sue x

A good debate is very rewarding and sometime i can revise my opinion when taking in others opinions. What i dont like is the intangibles who wont see anyones elses opinion and the get nasty and personal , to me they have lost any credulity when they resort to that that when they can,t get others to agree with them.
Cant comment on the Moat site cos didnt see it.BUT to me I wonder why a stranger would start such a site??

If, by 'exchanging views' you mean a good degate - I think that's good.

If, by 'exchanging views on other sites', you are referring to the Moat appreciation thingy on FB - I think there should be a limit to the amount of mental aberration on the internet, or people think they can say what they want and hide behind a pseudonym.
That site has now been closed.