ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th February 2019, 03:26 AM   #201
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Words can cause harm. That this seems to escape some people never ceases to amaze me.
The fact that someone can interpret a simple sentence entirely wrongly never ceases to amaze me.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 03:27 AM   #202
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,828
Originally Posted by baron View Post
No you didn't, you linked to nonsense speculation on Wiki, an organisation of leftist contributors and editors.
Hilarious.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 03:28 AM   #203
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Words can cause harm. That this seems to escape some people never ceases to amaze me.
They want abuse to be allowed, because they are abusers, or they think because they can shrug off abuse, everyone can.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 03:28 AM   #204
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Hilarious.
Still here? I thought you'd be checking out those dictionary definitions.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 03:37 AM   #205
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,123
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Surprising how much people are willing to give up for the illusion of security

Yup, freedom of movement, international trade, jobs, fresh vegetables, cross-birder cooperation...
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 17th February 2019 at 03:40 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 05:10 AM   #206
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Words can cause harm.
Damn straight. It's a feature not a defect. I would quite possibly be a god-bothering homophobe this very day had I not been exposed to some very hurtful words that helped demolish some of the stupid ideas I had when I was younger.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 05:18 AM   #207
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,959
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Damn straight. It's a feature not a defect. I would quite possibly be a god-bothering homophobe this very day had I not been exposed to some very hurtful words that helped demolish some of the stupid ideas I had when I was younger.
And there is a difference between having your ideas challenged and simply being abused for who you are. Some people may be unable to differentiate but luckily not all of us
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 11:09 AM   #208
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,489
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I struck out the remainder of that sentence. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that mere speech should be prosecuted if it is deemed "disagreeable" regardless of whether or not harm results.
When did I say that, exactly?
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 11:37 AM   #209
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,579
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
When did I say that, exactly?


You said it yourself:
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to behave like a twat,
The remainder of that sentence does not negate the first part.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 11:49 AM   #210
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,489
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You said it yourself:
Quote:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to behave like a twat,
The remainder of that sentence does not negate the first part.
You said: "you believe that mere speech should be prosecuted if it is deemed "disagreeable"."[/quote]

If you're quibbling about the power or words, maybe you need to learn what some of them actually mean first, because you're comprehension is clearly pretty limited.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 17th February 2019 at 11:52 AM.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 12:52 PM   #211
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You said it yourself:

The remainder of that sentence does not negate the first part.
It's a variation on a common refrain trotted out by people ignorant of the freedom of speech concept: "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech!" Actually, yes it does, in terms of legal consequences that's exactly what it means.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 12:57 PM   #212
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's a variation on a common refrain trotted out by people ignorant of the freedom of speech concept: "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech!" Actually, yes it does, in terms of legal consequences that's exactly what it means.
Can you give a real world example of what you mean by that?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 01:03 PM   #213
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Can you give a real world example of what you mean by that?
Of what? Freedom of speech? Of course, you have the right to state the Queen is an idiot (or a lizard) without any legal action being taken against you.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 02:00 PM   #214
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Of what? Freedom of speech? Of course, you have the right to state the Queen is an idiot (or a lizard) without any legal action being taken against you.
You said legally we are free from the consequences of freedom of speech. I get that I can call the Queen a lizard. I don't get that I can make death threats against her and call that free speech, or abuse her when in the company of royal supporters, without having to face the consequences.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 02:07 PM   #215
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You said legally we are free from the consequences of freedom of speech. I get that I can call the Queen a lizard. I don't get that I can make death threats against her and call that free speech, or abuse her when in the company of royal supporters, without having to face the consequences.
Death threats are not free speech. That's how come they have legal consequences.

And if you are on the receiving end of 'consequences' from royal supporters then those aren't legal consequences.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 02:14 PM   #216
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Death threats are not free speech. That's how come they have legal consequences.

And if you are on the receiving end of 'consequences' from royal supporters then those aren't legal consequences.
The phrase you quoted was "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech!", not "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of freedom of speech!"

The classic example is you are not free to shout fire in a cinema and cause a panic when there is no fire.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 02:25 PM   #217
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The phrase you quoted was "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech!", not "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of freedom of speech!"
Of course, the latter makes no sense. Speech under freedom of speech has no consequences. That's what it means.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The classic example is you are not free to shout fire in a cinema and cause a panic when there is no fire.
Yes, but that's not true, because you are free to do so. You'll likely be banned from the cinema but that's not a legal consequence.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 06:47 PM   #218
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,579
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
You said: "you believe that mere speech should be prosecuted if it is deemed "disagreeable"."

If you're quibbling about the power or words, maybe you need to learn what some of them actually mean first, because you're comprehension is clearly pretty limited.
OK then, you believe that mere speech should be prosecuted if it is deemed to be "twat like behaviour". The point is that you made no exception for "twat like behaviour" that results in no harm.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 01:46 AM   #219
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Of course, the latter makes no sense. Speech under freedom of speech has no consequences. That's what it means.



Yes, but that's not true, because you are free to do so. You'll likely be banned from the cinema but that's not a legal consequence.
Setting off a false alarm and causing a building to be evacuated would normally result in a breach of the peace charge in Scotland.

In any case, the original quote is not just about legal consequences. being rude about the Queen in certain company may result in the consequence of being abused or ostracised.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 03:29 AM   #220
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Setting off a false alarm and causing a building to be evacuated would normally result in a breach of the peace charge in Scotland.
I knew you'd change the goal posts. We're talking about speech, not actions. That a person might set off an alarm or wave their arms or threaten people is irrelevant, the issue is the speech itself, which is "Fire!" Now I accept that in Scotland they can arrest you for any old thing pretty much on a whim, as their definition of 'breach of the peace' is unique in the world, but to take the crowded theatre example, place it in Scotland and try to make out that shouting a specific word might get you charged is disingenuous to the argument as a whole.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
In any case, the original quote is not just about legal consequences.
Then it has no relevance. Freedom of speech allows me to say, "It's sunny today." The fact that someone might object and punch me in the chops for saying it doesn't affect my rights one iota.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 06:49 AM   #221
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,489
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
OK then, you believe that mere speech should be prosecuted if it is deemed to be "twat like behaviour". The point is that you made no exception for "twat like behaviour" that results in no harm.
Operative part. You're not the arbiter of whether or not harm is caused.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 07:30 AM   #222
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I knew you'd change the goal posts. We're talking about speech, not actions. That a person might set off an alarm or wave their arms or threaten people is irrelevant, the issue is the speech itself, which is "Fire!" Now I accept that in Scotland they can arrest you for any old thing pretty much on a whim, as their definition of 'breach of the peace' is unique in the world, but to take the crowded theatre example, place it in Scotland and try to make out that shouting a specific word might get you charged is disingenuous to the argument as a whole.



Then it has no relevance. Freedom of speech allows me to say, "It's sunny today." The fact that someone might object and punch me in the chops for saying it doesn't affect my rights one iota.
I am not changing the goal posts. I am pointing out that it is correct to say, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech and that applies to both issue that are cover by the law and those are not.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 07:41 AM   #223
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am not changing the goal posts. I am pointing out that it is correct to say, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech and that applies to both issue that are cover by the law and those are not.
But it does not mean that. If it did everything you could possibly say would be categorised under freedom of speech and thus it would lose its meaning. Freedom of speech specifically means speech for which there is no legal consequence. People do not always use it this way, and complain that their rights to free speech are being taken away when they are banned from a forum, or when they don't have their letter published in the local newspaper, or even when someone takes exception to what they say and starts to harass them, but this is using the terminology incorrectly.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:42 AM   #224
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,123
The real problem is not that the offences and “incidents” that this thread is about are “thought crimes”, it’s more that they aren’t. The definition of “hate” involved in an offence or incident (it was cited by Pupycow on page 1 of the thread) is just that somebody thinks it might be involve hatred. The state of mind or intention of the alleged perpetrator are irrelevant. It doesn’t even need to be the complainant who alleges hatred, it can be anyone. Anyone can just arbitrarily declare any incident a “hate incident”. And that includes the police.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:56 AM   #225
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,579
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Operative part. You're not the arbiter of whether or not harm is caused.
I don't know why you make this argument since you don't care about the harm aspect.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 09:23 AM   #226
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,489
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't know why you make this argument since you don't care about the harm aspect.
If you're just going to continue making stuff up, I'm not interested in listening.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 10:17 AM   #227
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,403
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Why would you make such a lunatic statement?

Originally Posted by baron View Post
The fact that someone can interpret a simple sentence entirely wrongly never ceases to amaze me.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
No you didn't, you linked to nonsense speculation on Wiki, an organisation of leftist contributors and editors. If you want a definition, try a dictionary. I've no need to look it up because I know what you will find; the vast majority of definitions making no stipulation on political leanings whatsoever and the few that do, specifying it as one option amongst many.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 10:18 AM   #228
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,403
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
When did I say that, exactly?
In his head.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 10:19 AM   #229
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,403
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's a variation on a common refrain trotted out by people ignorant of the freedom of speech concept: "Oh, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech!" Actually, yes it does, in terms of legal consequences that's exactly what it means.
No it doesn't.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 10:41 AM   #230
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post




Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
No it doesn't.
You've got me beat there. I can't hope to compete against such expert debate.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 11:18 AM   #231
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,489
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
In his head.
Yeah, I figured it was something like that.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:04 PM   #232
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
But it does not mean that. If it did everything you could possibly say would be categorised under freedom of speech and thus it would lose its meaning. Freedom of speech specifically means speech for which there is no legal consequence. People do not always use it this way, and complain that their rights to free speech are being taken away when they are banned from a forum, or when they don't have their letter published in the local newspaper, or even when someone takes exception to what they say and starts to harass them, but this is using the terminology incorrectly.
I have never heard of this before;

"Freedom of speech specifically means speech for which there is no legal consequence."

can you show me where that comes from?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:09 PM   #233
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have never heard of this before;

"Freedom of speech specifically means speech for which there is no legal consequence."

can you show me where that comes from?
What else could it possibly mean? Free speech is defined within the sphere of state regulation. What other consequence could be of relevance?
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:22 PM   #234
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What else could it possibly mean? Free speech is defined within the sphere of state regulation. What other consequence could be of relevance?
The expression "freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech" is not just about legal consequences. You could say something that is not illegal, but it could get you disciplined at work, or thrown out a cinema, or punched in a pub. Those are all consequences.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:37 PM   #235
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The expression "freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech" is not just about legal consequences. You could say something that is not illegal, but it could get you disciplined at work, or thrown out a cinema, or punched in a pub. Those are all consequences.
Non-legal consequences are consequences of speech, not of freedom of speech. Anybody can react to anybody saying anything. Freedom of speech is all about how much control the state exerts over an individual's expression. The fact the bloke down the pub might punch you for insulting his football team is not relevant.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:46 PM   #236
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,849
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Non-legal consequences are consequences of speech, not of freedom of speech. Anybody can react to anybody saying anything. Freedom of speech is all about how much control the state exerts over an individual's expression. The fact the bloke down the pub might punch you for insulting his football team is not relevant.
Which is you agreeing this is correct "freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech".
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 02:52 PM   #237
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Which is you agreeing this is correct "freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of speech".
No, it's me disagreeing with this again, because as I've explained, the notion of 'consequences' when talking of freedom of speech clearly relates to those resulting from state intervention. Consequences in more general terminology can result from literally anything you do, from saying hello to threatening murder to scratching your arse.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 03:14 PM   #238
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,123
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have never heard of this before;

"Freedom of speech specifically means speech for which there is no legal consequence."

can you show me where that comes from?

Some people imagine that “human rights” (at least, the ones they approve of) are absolute. They aren’t, because they often impact on the rights of others. For example, one person’s right to free speech might impact on someone else’s right to privacy. Or, as in the example discussed in this thread, one person’s right to free speech might result in someone else’s right not to be harassed being infringed.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 03:27 PM   #239
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Some people imagine that “human rights” (at least, the ones they approve of) are absolute. They aren’t, because they often impact on the rights of others. For example, one person’s right to free speech might impact on someone else’s right to privacy. Or, as in the example discussed in this thread, one person’s right to free speech might result in someone else’s right not to be harassed being infringed.
There is no mention of harassment in that link.

The right to free speech does not and cannot infringe on anybody else's rights by definition. Contrary to ignorant opinion, in the UK there is no right not to be offended. If you think otherwise please illustrate with an example and state precisely what human right is being infringed (here is a list for easy selection).
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:16 PM   #240
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,579
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
If you're just going to continue making stuff up, I'm not interested in listening.
Then you have no excuse to stop listening yet. Let's revisit your statement:
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to behave like a twat, especially if it infringes on the safety or rights of others. "
The word "especially" does not mean "limited to harm" cases, it just means that harm should be the primary focus. Yet, under your stated belief, even if there was no harm (however that is determined), a person could still be prosecuted for behaving like a "twat".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.