http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7114343.stm What do you lot think? Is free speech even a good thing?
BUll is bull why have a debate to see why it is bull. Life's too short.Book them into Harlem next time. regards koyo
Free speech is a wonderful concept. Unfortunately, as this incident illustrates perfectly, what one person sees as free speech another sees as inherently evil. Free speech followed by debate by both sides is the only fair way to go imo.
"The trouble with democracy is every silly [person] gets a vote. " Gah, can't think for the life of me who said that. Unfortunately, sensible debates between some groups aren't going to happen. Too much hostility is bred, and it all too easily turns into a fight. Which doesn't always solove much.
There is always free speech - how it is recieved is another matter. The BNP had some great policies a little while ago but sadly almost every single one of them is a facist, or racist or else a supporter of facism/racism. They must enjoy the publicity quite a bit though.
Free Speech has to be universal, you must not caveat it. But does that mean you have to provide a platform for it? They are more than welcome to spread their message on high streets in between the Chuggers and the Scientologists, but Oxfords Union should not be offering to help them spread a message of hate.
Yes, I think free speech is a good thing, and an important thing. While I think David Irving's views are ridiculous and that Nick Griffin is a racist moron, I will still support for their right to express their views, no matter how stupid they are or how strong I disagree with them. I was trying to recall a quote when I head about this which goes something like: the best way to get someone to reveal their ignorance is by getting them to speak.
i think that's called giving them enough rope to hang themselves with... i'm all for free speech, but i think there's a lot of people who take their freedoms too far. the way i feel about all personal liberties is that a person has the right to them UP TO A POINT - the point being where they begin to infringe upon the personal liberties of anyone else. free speech takes longer to infringe on others' rights, but it still happens... but by all means, if someone want to express how ignorant and stupid they are, let them! doesn't mean anyone has to listen!
Of course Hitler did the same thing with the Munich Beer Hall Putsch... I totally agree with Cait with what she said about freedom of speech to "up a point" and I don't think that Griffin or Irving should be given any air time considering their bigoted and quite frankly ridiculous views.
Godwin's Law? Freedom of speech is nice, but it doesn't exist. Won't exist because we are all free but not to impeach on others freedoms, and there are a lot of freedoms that are compromised.
Free Speech - a wonderful thing. They're more than welcome to peddle their moronic views on the streets or in the pub (as long as it's not down my local), but to give them a privileged platform is irresponsible. Don't confuse free speech with validating someones right to be a moron in public.
It seems to me like there are two rather different issues here. On the one hand you have David Irving. Now if he was simply a controversial historian, then this would be genuine issue about freedom if speech. But he has been shown up as a complete charlatan, so inviting him to speak at the Oxford Union gives him an air of credibility which he really doesn't merit - and by association, it lends false credibility to his pro-nazi lies, which he tries to pass off as 'research'. Then on the other hand you have the BNP. Now in a democracy, every political party is entitled to be heard, however repulsive most people may find their policies. But given that our traditional rights of free speech would last about five minutes if they ever got into power, you have question why anyone who values free speech would willingly give them a platform, and the 'oxygen of publicity' which they crave.
Agreed, but the question is, should we extend the right to freedom of speech only to those who value it? The difference between free speech and validating someones right, or lending credibilty to their claims by giving them a privileged or respected platform is a big one. Which ones?
That's my point exactly. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have the right to free speech. But in a free society, no one is obliged to give them a platform. They can publish their papers, have a website, speak on street corners, etc. (provided they keep within the law.) And they can book their own halls - but no-one is obliged to accept their booking if they don't want to.
There's no point in going on about having Free Speech if you are going to start discriminating against certain groups or dealing out handicaps to them, because you obviously do not have Free Speech in that case. Free Speech is also a central basis on which a “Free Society” (aka Western Liberal Democracy) rests on. Whether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant in this particular context because we live in a society which purports to support such notions as basic fundamental rights. If you deny it to any one group or person then you invalidate the entire basis of your society. You either have Free Speech or you don’t, you can’t have it for only certain people or groups & not others without being self-contradictory.
Eer, surely the entire point is that the protesters were expressing their right to free speech and free assembly by demonstrating against a fraud and a faschist being given a platform on what is supopsed to be a bastion of good education?
Yes - protestors are entitled to free speech too. (Although obviously they would lose that right sharpish if the BNP ever got into power.)
Yes, but we need to discern what free speech actually means here. If I wanted an audience and debate by beliefs on how the world was actually flat and the way I could maniplulate my Chi to speed up the orbit of the earth of around the Sun, would the Oxford Toffs grant it to me? Hell no. Would I believe this was a violation of my right to free speech?No. I would get on my soap box in the middle of town, or on a street corner and exercise my right to free speech there. Ludicrous views or beliefs should not be validated by being given a privileged platform from which to express them. They belong on street corners and in pubs.
