[JagoPlasma]

After watching question time last night it really got me thinking. What opinions in our “Free speech” world are we allowed to have?

Nick Griffin honestly stated (Yes honesty in a politician! ) that people like him found the sight of 2 males kissing “Creepy”

So then, with all the boo and hissing he got is he not entitled to have that opinion, and also is he not entitled to express it (Even, or maybe especially if it is a minority view)

Now to put this into context



The war in Iraq, illegal or not, was supported and disapproved in peoples opinions

A chemist, denied a woman the morning after pill (Something she was legally entitled to) because of his beliefs/opinion on abortion

People are allowed to take their relatives abroad for euthanasia (illegal) because in their opinion it was ok for the person they helped to be able to do it.

A topic on the Jeremy Vine show this week was about fat people, is it ok to deny overweight people jobs based on their size e.g a receptionist (Not illegal)



I honestly don't want this to turn into or be seen as a homophobic/racist/pro BNP thread.

I want an honest discussion on what people feel we have a right to think, be it morally or legally right or wrong

Can you think of any examples which trouble you like the ones I have listed?
Are there any things you get offended by but people are allowed to say?

[weetsie]

i think the problem with nick griffin is he is stuck in the past, he cannot understand that countries change and cannot be the same way forever.

that's why i think he finds it "creepy" to see two men kissing.

my grandparents are from the 20's and back then everyone would of thought it was creepy or perverted for two men to be kissing but today they accept it and so should nick griffin and if not that's his problem and he should keep it to himself.

[steviedog]

Originally Posted by weetsie

i think the problem with nick griffin is he is stuck in the past, he cannot understand that countries change and cannot be the same way forever.

that's why i think he finds it "creepy" to see two men kissing.

my grandparents are from the 20's and back then everyone would of thought it was creepy or perverted for two men to be kissing but today they accept it and so should nick griffin and if not that's his problem and he should keep it to himself.

I think you've missed the OP's point completely.

Nick Griffin's opinion is his own, and although a lot of people wouldn't agree with it, they should agree that he is entitled to it and entitled to say it.

[lufc_spaceman]

Just because someone finds two men kissing creepy doesn't make them homophobic (although Griffin blatantly is).

It's the one thing I agree with him on.

I have a gay mate and nothing changed with our friendship after he came out, we even have a bit of banter about it but I would be horrified if he pulled some bloke in front of me.

[andyk]

Originally Posted by lufc_spaceman

Just because someone finds two men kissing creepy doesn't make them homophobic (although Griffin blatantly is).

It's the one thing I agree with him on.

I have a gay mate and nothing changed with our friendship after he came out, we even have a bit of banter about it but I would be horrified if he pulled some bloke in front of me.

This misses th OP's point too. The question is about the freedom to express an opinion or personal conviction, not about the content of that opinion.

[mij]

An opinion is a good thing as long as it is honest and it's intent is not to deliberately cause offence or harm in my opinion.

But do remember that whatever you say it will offend someone, so always start your sentence with "I am not a .... but" and you will be forgiven by the I am so offended brigade, hopefully.

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by steviedog

I think you've missed the OP's point completely.

Nick Griffin's opinion is his own, and although a lot of people wouldn't agree with it, they should agree that he is entitled to it and entitled to say it.

it goes beyond that, if he gained enough power his opnion would become law which would then impact on millions of britians

of course the ironic thing is onces hes shipped everyone that does not corrospond to the approved shades on the dulux colour chart abroad and delt with all the gay people in god knows what barbaric way the majority of his voters would have to get off there lazy chav ass's and actually have to work since there wouldnt be enough people to do all the jobs out there.

[PoochJD]

Hi,

As far as I am aware, we do NOT have true freedom of speech in this country!

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything, even that which might be offensive to the majority, without fear of breaking the law or getting into any trouble. (Apologies, as I know that's a bad definition, but I can't find a better way to explain it. )

The problem is, there are lots of things you can't say/do, because you will be arrested for them.

Freedom of speech would mean, I could - in theory at least - go into London, and walk around the streets with a giant placard upon which it says that all Black Men are rapists. It would be a complete lie, and I would be rightly arrested for potentially inciting racial hatred.

Ditto, if I were to wear a T-Shirt that had the slogan "Jesus Is A " on it! I'd be arrested for religious hatred. And likewise, if I carried a banner stating "Death To All Fags!", (And I'm not meaning cigarettes here!), I'd be rightly charged with inciting homophobia.

True Freedom of Speech means that I could do all of those, and not break the law. The thing is, you can't do those things in the UK, because you ARE breaking the law. So all this talk of freedom of speech, is actually false. Holding offensive and factually inaccurate beliefs is one thing, but acting upon them in any way, is not acceptable.

There are many things you can say and do, but there are plenty you cannot. Hence, if there are things you cannot say, and that if you did, you'd be breaking the law, then freedom of speech cannot exist.

With Nick Griffin saying he wants Britain to be for people who are born and bred here, what he actually means is, he wants Britain to be a country for whites, and only for white people. But, he also means he wants Britain to not be a place for white Muslims, white Jews, nor for people born of one white and one non-white parents. (Again, my apologies for the bad descriptions here.)

So, in any other words, what he is saying is racially, religiously, and genderally breaking the law. But he won't admit that, nor will he actually say that, in those words/terms. He rewords it, to make it appear like he's being "acceptable", when - to anyone who has an IQ just slightly larger than their shoe size - we know what he actually means! In other words, he's not a racist, he just hates everyone who's not white, and English!

Clearly, in this day and age, people should know better. After all, as Bonnie Greer said, as did a member of the audience, all "Brits" derived from African heritage, at some point in history. So technically, none of us are "pure", and all of us have some ethnicity in us. This means that as far as Nick Griffin is concerned, even he shouldn't be living here!

And just to clarify, I do NOT agree with any of the above offensive statements that I've used! They are being used purely to make a point, and for no other purpose.


Pooch

[unique]

you have a right to think what you want, and in most cases you have the right to express it

the uk does not have full freedom of speech however, it's the same with many countries, there are usually limitations on freedom of speech, in particular relating to hate related comments, such as race, religion and sex

the law doesn't prevent you from thinking that you hate a race, religion or gays, or even necesarily telling anyone that you do, but it does restrict how you may say it, in particular you can't make comments that break laws regarding these issues

sometimes it's best just to keep your thoughts to yourself. most people with extreme views are usually aware that they aren't popular

i'm sure everyone hates something, even if they just hate "hate", but not everyone has to tell the world about it

[Phil57]

Originally Posted by eric pisch

it goes beyond that, if he gained enough power his opnion would become law which would then impact on millions of britians

of course the ironic thing is onces hes shipped everyone that does not corrospond to the approved shades on the dulux colour chart abroad and delt with all the gay people in god knows what barbaric way the majority of his voters would have to get off there lazy chav ass's and actually have to work since there wouldnt be enough people to do all the jobs out there.

Could become law, not necessarily would become law.

[loz]

Originally Posted by eric pisch

it goes beyond that, if he gained enough power his opnion would become law which would then impact on millions of britians

and if he did gain power which presumably would be the result of a democratic process, then what would be wrong with that? Wouldn't it be the will of the people?

(not agreeing with his views, just asking the question regards 'democracy')

[Phil57]

Originally Posted by PoochJD

Hi,

As far as I am aware, we do NOT have true freedom of speech in this country!

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything, even that which might be offensive to the majority, without fear of breaking the law or getting into any trouble. (Apologies, as I know that's a bad definition, but I can't find a better way to explain it. )

The problem is, there are lots of things you can't say/do, because you will be arrested for them.

Freedom of speech would mean, I could - in theory at least - go into London, and walk around the streets with a giant placard upon which it says that all Black Men are rapists. It would be a complete lie, and I would be rightly arrested for potentially inciting racial hatred.

Ditto, if I were to wear a T-Shirt that had the slogan "Jesus Is A " on it! I'd be arrested for religious hatred. And likewise, if I carried a banner stating "Death To All Fags!", (And I'm not meaning cigarettes here!), I'd be rightly charged with inciting homophobia.

True Freedom of Speech means that I could do all of those, and not break the law. The thing is, you can't do those things in the UK, because you ARE breaking the law. So all this talk of freedom of speech, is actually false. Holding offensive and factually inaccurate beliefs is one thing, but acting upon them in any way, is not acceptable.

There are many things you can say and do, but there are plenty you cannot. Hence, if there are things you cannot say, and that if you did, you'd be breaking the law, then freedom of speech cannot exist.

With Nick Griffin saying he wants Britain to be for people who are born and bred here, what he actually means is, he wants Britain to be a country for whites, and only for white people. But, he also means he wants Britain to not be a place for white Muslims, white Jews, nor for people born of one white and one non-white parents. (Again, my apologies for the bad descriptions here.)

So, in any other words, what he is saying is racially, religiously, and genderally breaking the law. But he won't admit that, nor will he actually say that, in those words/terms. He rewords it, to make it appear like he's being "acceptable", when - to anyone who has an IQ just slightly larger than their shoe size - we know what he actually means! In other words, he's not a racist, he just hates everyone who's not white, and English!

Clearly, in this day and age, people should know better. After all, as Bonnie Greer said, as did a member of the audience, all "Brits" derived from African heritage, at some point in history. So technically, none of us are "pure", and all of us have some ethnicity in us. This means that as far as Nick Griffin is concerned, even he shouldn't be living here!

And just to clarify, I do NOT agree with any of the above offensive statements that I've used! They are being used purely to make a point, and for no other purpose.

Pooch

Does he hate people from other parts of Britain as well?

[JagoPlasma]

but then this gets back to my point of

Why is a person who sells legal drugs allowed to not sell them based on religion

Why is a person allowed to walk down the street shouting you're fat fat fat!

Why is a person allowed to say I think euthanasia is ok

Why are extremists allowed to hold placards and chant death to uk troops.

i think there is a bad case of double standards and nick griffin could unfortunately be seen to be the next Dr King or as a viewer on ch 5 said joan of arch



oh and this attack on Brits not being indigenous and all hailing from africa. what about native americans and aborigines? i guess we should stop calling them indigenous too? (though i agree they had probably better controls on breeding)

[lucasisking]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion- on any subject. The second we deny this, we enter the realm of 'thought crime', which is a totalitarian idea.

Nobody can or should tell me what I should think. Political correctness has brainwashed people into believing that what they should think is more important than what they do think. This is wrong.

As for freedom to express those opinions- that's trickier.

Personally I think that anyone in the public eye should keep thoughts to his or herself only if they geniunely incite hatred or violence (e.g. 'Jews should be killed'). If such a person wishes to express an opinion that is reviled by the majority (e.g. 'I dont like gays/ blacks etc') they should be allowed to say it. It will only expose that persons own prejudices and ignorance and will do that person more harm than those he offends.

We should not be in the business of policing opinions or trying to shield others from 'offence'. It is already a crime to say a racist word in this country- this thought police mentality is something I find worrying.

Is it right for example, that it is currently legal for a placard waver to appear in public chanting death to anyone that insults islam- directly thrteatening others? Yet it is illegal for anyone to utter the N word in public. This is preposterous.

[Mr Incredible]

I think context and motive have a lot to do with whether someone's opinion is relevant or welcome. Take LGS's persistent thread trashing where watches are involved. Sure he has a right to his opinion, but in the context of the "where can I buy an decent watch" thread, his opinion is as welcome as a fart in a space suit.

[bumper31]

Surely it is HOW we express an opinion?

I won't get arrested for saying I think all muslims are terrorists, or that infidels should die, or all gay men are should be castrated, or women shouldn't let out of the kitchen etc

But if I take out full page adverts, have a rally in Hyde park with loudspeakers then I can expect to be prosecuted. - (And I believe that is correct)

Then there is the way in which an opinion that is strongly held but not advertised is worded so that it MAY be rational......

Continuing the same examples as above.....muslim extremism needs to be suppressed, if someone doesn't believe in my god then they don't deserve the benefits my god provide, two gay men kissing may not be wrong but I find it a bit creepy, I prefer my wife to be a housewife.

All seem quite reasonable, but can be extrapolated to a far worse meaning.

Which brings the problem of giving the BNP a platform on question time or kicking Abu Hamza out of the finsbury park mosque and then allowing to preach via megaphone and creating an audience for him.

That sometimes they can word their arguments so that they get the average person thinking it can be quite reasonable.......and then the seed is sown.

It is a danger and a fine line..........

I for one believe we do strike a fine balance, enough freedom of speech to allow people to express their beliefs but as soon as that spills over into hatred or oppression then the law will come to bear.

[ps3mad]

We are only allowed free speech,if it is in line with the left wing,PC brigade's idea of how we should live.If you dare to say anything against their 'ideal' you are automatically a rascist,a nazi or a fascist

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by loz

and if he did gain power which presumably would be the result of a democratic process, then what would be wrong with that? Wouldn't it be the will of the people?

(not agreeing with his views, just asking the question regards 'democracy')

fair point

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by Phil57

Could become law, not necessarily would become law.

im sure one of his first commands as PM would be to order 1000 shower heads etc

[Logo Hater]

Thousands of people lost their lives in the two great wars to protect the rights of people in this country to have free speech. These rights are enshrined in law, have never been repealed and yet are now being overtaken by new laws which seem to be given precedence over those original laws, which I will repeat have never been repealed.

When I was a child, I remember my father taking me to Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, where anyone who wished to could stand and talk on any subject they chose. It mattered not how offensive it may have been to others, they had the right in law to say it out loud. That right as far as I know has never been removed, but anyone trying it today would very quickly be arrested.

Why are we as citizens of this country permitting this to happen, permitting the thought police and the Politically correct to have it all their own way without us protesting.

I don't care how offensive or objectionable any persons thoughts or utterances are to me personally, or others who may be offended. I will till my dying breath, believe they have the right not only to think it, but to say it out loud if they so desire.

[MikeTV]

It's remarkable that so many people are protesting about infringements to freedom of speech, in the same week as the BBC devoted a whole edition of Question Time to Nick Griffins views, and the papers have talked about nothing else.

It's already been said, but the only laws are concerned with people who incite race-hatred, and not laws restricting free speech. Nick Griifin has not been arrested for any thing that he said this week.

And the remaining complainers are just those people who object to having their right-wing, politically incorrect statements being challenged by others. Well tough luck - that's just free speech.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Logo Hater

I don't care how offensive or objectionable any persons thoughts or utterances are to me personally, or others who may be offended.

I do care how offensive or objectionable a person's utterances are. What people say to their their mates in the pub, is one thing. But sexist or racist remarks that were considered acceptable behaviour in the workplace or other public contexts in the 1970's are no longer acceptable. And that is progress towards improving individual freedoms and rights.

[Fred Quimby]

I think the country should be run by a conglomeration,of forum members,all problems solved easily

[Logo Hater]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I do care how offensive or objectionable a person's utterances are. What people say to their their mates in the pub, is one thing. But sexist or racist remarks that were considered acceptable behaviour in the workplace or other public contexts in the 1970's are no longer acceptable. And that is progress towards improving individual freedoms and rights.

The whole point of you saying that remarks made by others are offensive are no longer acceptable, is just a point of view, which is becoming increasingly accepted as the only opinion which is acceptable to everyone.

You then claim that this is progress to improving freedoms and rights, whereas just the opposite is true.

How can you claim that restricting someone elses opinions is progress to improving freedom and rights. It is forcing them to think in a way which someone else has deemed acceptable.

This is not what all those brave souls fought and died for, they fought and died for the freedoms to think and say what they thought and felt. I am horrified that they did it for nothing, because we are now being forced into thinking what others have deemed acceptable. That is not freedom. It is dictatorship and I find it abhorant.

[unique]

Originally Posted by Logo Hater

The whole point of you saying that remarks made by others are offensive are no longer acceptable, is just a point of view, which is becoming increasingly accepted as the only opinion which is acceptable to everyone.

You then claim that this is progress to improving freedoms and rights, whereas just the opposite is true.

How can you claim that restricting someone elses opinions is progress to improving freedom and rights. It is forcing them to think in a way which someone else has deemed acceptable.

This is not what all those brave souls fought and died for, they fought and died for the freedoms to think and say what they thought and felt. I am horrified that they did it for nothing, because we are now being forced into thinking what others have deemed acceptable. That is not freedom. It is dictatorship and I find it abhorant.

people fought nazis and other racists and hate filled rulers in order to stamp out hatred and create peace and equality, not to let people roam free to share racist and other hate filled viewpoints

the last major war this country fought was to stop nazis from killing jews because one person didn't like them. it wasn't fought to let another person from our own country take out hatred towards other races because he doesn't like them

it's quite clear that those people are the minority. they are welcome to their views, but for the sake of the human race they are best kept to themselves

it's simple common sense to put laws into place to stop extremists with anti social views causing problems for the rest of society. it's worth a small restriction in freedom of speech to stop that

[Saldawop]

the last major war this country fought was to stop nazis from killing jews because one person didn't like them.

Is that why we went to war?

[Phil57]

Originally Posted by unique

people fought nazis and other racists and hate filled rulers in order to stamp out hatred and create peace and equality, not to let people roam free to share racist and other hate filled viewpoints

the last major war this country fought was to stop nazis from killing jews because one person didn't like them it wasn't fought to let another person from our own country take out hatred towards other races because he doesn't like them

it's quite clear that those people are the minority. they are welcome to their views, but for the sake of the human race they are best kept to themselves

it's simple common sense to put laws into place to stop extremists with anti social views causing problems for the rest of society. it's worth a small restriction in freedom of speech to stop that

Are you sure that the last 'major' war was fought to stop the nazi from killing the Jews?

[Logo Hater]

The last Major war was fought to prevent this country and the rest of Europe being forced, against our collective will, into accepting rule by the Nazis.

Of course had Hitler succeeded in his plans, he would no doubt have tried to wage war with many other countries.

Those brave soldiers who gave their all to protect us, did a magnificent job of preventing that. How sad therefore that everything they fought for is now in danger of being lost to the thought police and petty bureacrats, who have the opinion that what they desire and believe is far more important than allowing the rest of us to form our own opinions and thoughts.

I am not claiming, nor would I ever, that we should not be expected to display not only common sense and good manners, but a sense of decorum. This would mean not saying anything which would be considered particularly ill mannered, or deeply offensive. I would as a responsible Human Being, not countenance that, ever.

I do however firmly believe that freedom of speech is something we should never give up, it is far too important a principle for that.

[unique]

so it sounds like you mean that we should be allowed to say what we want, but those with extreme views should have the decency to keep those views to themselves? which is fair enough, but what do you do when people don't keep those views to themselves? do you just allow extremists to cause trouble and misery for others?

why should a minority of individuals be allowed to cause misery to others?

the few restrictions to freedom of speech surely doesn't cause misery to anyone does it? the restrictions are them to defend and protect people

[DJ Ovengloves]

I found Dianne Abbott as equally offensive.

That said, both her an Mr Griffin should be allowed to speak..I'm quite happy to make up my own mind thanks very much!