Do you believe in freedom of speech?

[kyser_soze]

But since a mechanism exists without having to go upwards to the state, those should be used first; besides, as we've established, the concept of vulnerable is peronsonally subjective and this makes it, IMV, a bad thing for the state to get involved in. Certainly in your example there is no way the state should be getting involved.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But since a mechanism exists without having to go upwards to the state, those should be used first; besides, as we've established, the concept of vulnerable is peronsonally subjective and this makes it, IMV, a bad thing for the state to get involved in. Certainly in your example there is no way the state should be getting involved.

What mechanism exists? I'm not advocating an authoritarian state. I am saying that if a state is to exist, it must be a part of its role to establish rights and freedoms that are to be protected by law. The establishment of rights and freedoms is of course a subjective business. If anything that only makes it more important that the decision as to what they constitute should be taken collectively.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, in the case of your woman seeking abortion, a similar response to the Phelps thing would be a self-starting mechanism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, in the case of your woman seeking abortion, a similar response to the Phelps thing would be a self-starting mechanism.

A great big shouting match outside the clinic?

 

[kyser_soze]

Why not? It's people freely expressing themselves, offering opinion. Not the most appropriate place or time but at the end of the day deciding on that is where things like manners come in, and that's what you ultimately want to legislate for - manners. You can't stop someone pro-life protesting, you just want them to do it somewhere else or be quiet about it or not do it when someone is walking into a clinic - in other words you want to legislate personal behaviour, not a principle of rights.

 

[teuchter]

Is it not possible to take the view that the state should get involved in some circumstances, but not to stop someone saying something, rather to intervene to deal with the consequences of someone saying something, and hold them responsible for that?

In the example of rabble-rousing or doorstepping, I think you can say that it's OK for people to say what they like, but that you do have to intervene once people are actually doing something (like harassing someone vulnerable) that you have (subjectively) decided is unacceptable.

I can see how you can make the argument that it's inconsistent to say the state (or society, or whatever you want to call it) can make subjective judgements about certain actions being acceptable or not, but at the same time say it shouldn't be allowed to make subjective judgements about what is acceptable for people to say.

My reasoning here would be that you have to preserve the principle of free speech, because it is that which allows the debate to take place by which means the state/society/whatever decides what actions are/aren't acceptable.

In other words, I believe that the state (assuming it is a healthy, democratic state, of course), should intervene and say certain behaviours are not to be tolerated, simply because this is a preferable method to the vigilante-type control that Kyser seems to prefer, but that speech and expression of ideas need to get an exemption from this because this is crucial to the system functioning properly in the first place.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I want to protect vulnerable people going about their lawful business. The street outside an abortion clinic should be kept free of any kind of protest as a mark of respect for the women having abortions.

This in no way impinges on the right to campaign against abortion, picket parliament (a very appropriate place to demonstrate), write letters and emails, start petitions, distribute publications in the street (just not the street outside a clinic), etc.

 

[kyser_soze]

should intervene and say certain behaviours are not to be tolerated

Which behaviour? Who decides? Who decides who is vulnerable, and if I disagree why shouldn't I break the law to make my point heard; I mean after all, it would be very, very wasy to turn around and say that society is vulnerable to certain groups and individuals spreading a specific message, and that we can enact a whole raft of laws to target those people and deny them their rights. These people could be groups that the majority of democratically elected representatives, or even a simple majority of a population, deem to be subversive or unwelcome.

Ah, but that's already been done in the UK - the anti-terror laws. It's happening in some European countries, where it's illegal to deny the Holocaust, because denial is an idea that states don't want spreading. Indeed, in the UK we send police in to harrass and degrade the protesting opporunities of those who are opposed to global warming. So you see, once you start applying subjective opinions as to who or what gets protected, and what is or isn't allowed to be said, you end up with conflict that can only be ultimately resolved by more state intervention, and more laws.

 

[kyser_soze]

I want to protect vulnerable people going about their lawful business. The street outside an abortion clinic should be kept free of any kind of protest as a mark of respect for the women having abortions.

This in no way impinges on the right to campaign against abortion, picket parliament (a very appropriate place to demonstrate), write letters and emails, start petitions, distribute publications in the street (just not the street outside a clinic), etc.

So you wouldp seek to legislate manners.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's nonsense. The kind of European legislation you refer to makes it illegal to publish certain ideas (well, lies really). That's not what I'm talking about at all.

As for your other point about protesting, a sensible bill of rights would very much protect the right to protest. There is a sharp distinction to be made, however, between the harassing of a private individual and the picketing of a commercial company, government organisation or conference.

Bringing up anti-terror legislation is a red herring.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So you wouldp seek to legislate manners.

I would see the state as having a role to play in protecting the freedom of certain people in certain circumstances not to be harassed. I've already said this.

fwiw, I'd also extend this to protecting people's privacy. I find it extraordinary that the press are entitled to camp outside a person's home and harass them as soon as they leave their front door. Absolutely extraordinary.

 

[teuchter]

Which behaviour? Who decides? Who decides who is vulnerable, and if I disagree why shouldn't I break the law to make my point heard; I mean after all, it would be very, very wasy to turn around and say that society is vulnerable to certain groups and individuals spreading a specific message, and that we can enact a whole raft of laws to target those people and deny them their rights. These people could be groups that the majority of democratically elected representatives, or even a simple majority of a population, deem to be subversive or unwelcome.

Ah, but that's already been done in the UK - the anti-terror laws. It's happening in some European countries, where it's illegal to deny the Holocaust, because denial is an idea that states don't want spreading. Indeed, in the UK we send police in to harrass and degrade the protesting opporunities of those who are opposed to global warming. So you see, once you start applying subjective opinions as to who or what gets protected, and what is or isn't allowed to be said, you end up with conflict that can only be ultimately resolved by more state intervention, and more laws.

Well, what you're really talking about is the shortcomings of democracy. Like lots of people I'd be interested to hear of suggestions for a plausible alternative that works better, but like most people I'm still waiting to see such a thing.

 

[kyser_soze]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this LBJ.

And it's not nonsense. You're talking about subjective opinion being used to guide legislation 'protecting' people from Bad Things; the legislation about historical denial is to protect people from an opinion, even if it is a lie; the anti-terror legislation is an attempt to 'protect' society from a group deemed 'bad', and as has been demonstrated many times, it's use has been expanded to deal with many, many groups and individuals whom the state has deemed to be 'bad' and the rest of us need 'protecting' from, so don't write of anti-terror legislation as a 'red herring' because the process and thinking behind it is exactly the same train of logic that you're advocating - use legisalation to 'protect' something defined as 'vulnerable'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this LBJ.

And it's not nonsense. You're talking about subjective opinion being used to guide legislation 'protecting' people from Bad Things; the legislation about historical denial is to protect people from an opinion, even if it is a lie; the anti-terror legislation is an attempt to 'protect' society from a group deemed 'bad', and as has been demonstrated many times, it's use has been expanded to deal with many, many groups and individuals whom the state has deemed to be 'bad' and the rest of us need 'protecting' from, so don't write of anti-terror legislation as a 'red herring' because the process and thinking behind it is exactly the same train of logic that you're advocating - use legisalation to 'protect' something defined as 'vulnerable'.

Nope, I've already answered this. The fundamental freedom to be protected would be that of the private individual not to be harassed. This in no way impinges on the free circulation of ideas in the wider world.

The alternative laissez-faire approach seems little more than victory to the strongest.

 

[kyser_soze]

The fundamental freedom to be protected would be that of the private individual not to be harassed.

Too vauge unless you're also defining harrassment, which again would be legally very difficult to prove and would be subject to interpretation by both enforcement on the ground and in the courts, especially in a one off situation such as the protest you're talking about.

But as I said, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Too vauge unless you're also defining harrassment, which again would be legally very difficult to prove and would be subject to interpretation by both enforcement on the ground and in the courts, especially in a one off situation such as the protest you're talking about.

I don't think it's vague at all. In the case of the clinic, the clinic itself could apply for a court order preventing people from protesting outside the clinic on the basis that 'private individuals going about their lawful business are being harassed' (define harassed: spoken to in a manner that is likely to, and intended to, cause distress). This would obviously have to be very carefully framed so that it cannot be abused, like all law. You could frame it more tightly and word it 'going about their lawful business and likely to be caused distress'.

You would probably have to exclude many groups from the legislation, including employees being demonstrated against when operating in their capacity of employees. So: screaming at a vivisectionist outside their lab: allowed. Following vivisectionist home and screaming at them outside their house: not allowed.

Such legislation may include situations where I'd have less sympathy, for instance banning demonstrations outside churches. But I'd see that as the lesser evil. Actually, even there, you could exclude protesting against an organisation where the people at a meeting are deemed to be part of that organisation. A church service is, after all, nothing more than a meeting. Picketing meetings could also be exempted.

 

[kyser_soze]

See, even within one paragraph you're getting into messy legislative territory, and once again there is the requirement of the state, not people, to organise things.

And it is legally vauge - look at current harrasment laws, requiring a demonstration of pattern behaviour - the sentence you've just given could easily enable private individuals or a government to stifle legitimate protest (Someone protesting says 'fuck you you scum', I claim mental distress, their protest is closed down). Your point about location suffers from the same problem as the Law or War about bombing civilians - it's essentially unenforceable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

See, even within one paragraph you're getting into messy legislative territory, and once again there is the requirement of the state, not people, to organise things.

And it is legally vauge - look at current harrasment laws, requiring a demonstration of pattern behaviour - the sentence you've just given could easily enable private individuals or a government to stifle legitimate protest (Someone protesting says 'fuck you you scum', I claim mental distress, their protest is closed down). Your point about location suffers from the same problem as the Law or War about bombing civilians - it's essentially unenforceable.

No it's not. It's mostly common sense. The law is interpreted largely according to common sense. And if you specifically exclude any kind of political meeting or person acting in their capacity as an employee, you avoid this problem.

I'm formulating this as I go along, btw, so of course it will take some tweaking to get it right. But as long as you are clear who you wish to protect and who you do not wish to protect, it should be possible to frame a law appropriately. That's what lawmaking is about.

 

[kyser_soze]

No it's not. It's mostly common sense. The law is interpreted largely according to common sense. And if you specifically exclude any kind of political meeting or person acting in their capacity as an employee, you avoid this problem.

Wrong, the law is interpreted in the courts by the power of argument, not common sense (a phrase which I'm very, very surprised to see someone with your overall outlook use). It would be at least possible to make the arguments I have stick, thus rendering your laws either unworkable, or as a route to suppression in the same way libel is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Wrong, the law is interpreted in the courts by the power of argument, not common sense (a phrase which I'm very, very surprised to see someone with your overall outlook use). It would be at least possible to make the arguments I have stick, thus rendering your laws either unworkable, or as a route to suppression in the same way libel is.

When I studied particular legislation in the past, it surprised me greatly the role common sense plays in its interpretation. In many ways, all law is itself an attempt to formulate 'common sense' in precise terms. In our precedent-led system, this is largely what judges are attempting to do when they lay down their judgements.

 

[kyser_soze]

Agree to disagree dude, we ain't going anywhere with this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fair enough. You do not believe that the state should involve itself in areas where I think it probably should. You also believe that the legislation this involvement would require would inevitably be open to abuse. I think it should be possible to legislate effectively.

You're right, we're not going to agree.

 

[dylanredefined]

I think you mean "pro-choicers".

Anyway, they do have a right to do that. Protests against churches, while not common, are not unknown. A bit like protests outside abortion clinics in this country.

Thats the problem with freedom of speech even unarticulate idiots like me get to speak .Yeah I ment pro choicers

 

[teuchter]

Agree to disagree dude, we ain't going anywhere with this.

You undermine the whole concept of Urban75 with your flippant statement.

 

[kyser_soze]

You undermine the whole concept of Urban75 with your flippant statement.

They don't called me kyser_'subversive'_soze for nothing round these parts...

*photocopies badly written pamphlets*

 

[Roadkill]

FWIW I'm pretty much in agreement with kyser soze here. Legislating what people can and can't say is dangerous territory.

There have to be a few minimal restrictions, mainly around direct incitement to violence, but I don't think anything more than that is either necessary or desirable.

 

[lights.out.london]

If you read the preceeding few posts you'd know that I was in fact arguing against the notion of someone having a right not to be yelled at, but don't let ignorance get in the way of your making a point eh?



This sentence makes no sense.

Quite simply put:

LBJ was saying that FoS can never be absolute because there comes a point where my right to tell someone they're a fuckwit will either cause someone else to take it one stage further and, for the sake of arguemnt, start doorstepping the person you're merely calling a fuckwit; this will then have an impact on the callees life, meaning that their right to live life without let or hindrance is being unduly harmed.

I disagree with this, saying that this vulnerable person can be protected by his mates getting together and shouting louder at the bloke doorstepping him until he goes away, thus everyone gets their right to call matey a fuckwit, and he's also protected by those who don't think he's a fuckwit; this also demonstrates community self-organisation solving a 'problem' without recourse to a state or authoriatrian actor to resolve the situation, which is LBJs solution.

A great example of this is the case of Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' campaign, often done at the funerals of dead soldiers whom Phelps thinks have been righteously killed for defending a country that 'loves fags'. The situation was resolves by a combination of groups of veterans and/or biker chapters shouting/revving down Phelps disgusting speech so that it couldn't be heard, rather than banning Phelps from attending the funerals of dead servicemen, which would have impinged on his right to yell 'God hates fags' at someone's funeral.

As I've said previously, I personally would remove the law that says you can't publicly declare you want to murder someone - if the fash start rabble rousing to go and march on people's homes, everyone else should start rabble rousing to march on the homes of the fash and protect the homes of those who would be vulnerable. If I stand up and call for GB to be murdered and then have the OB watching my every move for a year, that's a consequence of me openly declaring I want to commit a criminal act.

Freedom of speech, like most rights, requires that people behave in an adult fashion and as far as possible engender their own solutions to the conundrums that it throws up, rather than going runny to the state or some form of authority to take charge.

And before anyone comes at me with 'Well, you said that that chick who wrote the bad poetry about being a lyrical terrorist was justifably prosecuted'...well, first off I don't agree with the law as it stands, but she publicly declared that she was happy to be involved in a criminal act and her poetry arguably called on others to do the same - even without the ridiculous 'anti-terror' laws, what she'd written and publicly stated would have at least warranted someone pointing out to her that what she was doing would be wrong under previous laws concerning the subject.

If that's your idea of an 'argument', save your keyboard.

What are 'rights', such as you bandy the term around.

Read the sentence again. It makes sense if you have a basic grasp of Ethics 101.

 

[Cressi]

No I do not beleive we have 'fredom of speech'........laws of this land shut us up.

 

[lights.out.london]

No I do not beleive we have 'fredom of speech'........laws of this land shut us up.

I don't think it's so much 'shut us up', as channel what we want to say, into what we are allowed to say - I'm thinking more here of criticism of the way we live in our communities; the questioning of Capital and the use of Capital and the structures and bodies which re-inforce the status quo.

Cenorship of a kind. Pretty clever stuff.

 

[Cressi]

The laws of libel....very complicated......the laws of what can be reported in Courts across the land.....childrens courts .......you cannot say anything............the naming + shaming of some ASBO yobs but the rest just under 18........anon..till 18......despite what horrific crime they may have committed. Investigative journalism.....??? journalists have to be very careful + they abide by laws.....so in theory....'freedom' is restricted.