General Discussion

Anyone got anything to say on the subject?

I rather like this.

Eleanor Roosevelt and theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights(1949). Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

What happens when opinion and expression incites the masses to hate and/ or harm a minority? 

Yes I agree there is a dilemma between complete freedom of speech (as, say, put forward by

Article 19) and what is allowed in practice.

For example, in this country we have the laws of slander and libel and laws relating to promoting terrorism and incitement to racial hatred.

Freedom of Speech is not quite as straightforward a concept then, as might at first be thought?  

When I studied law (in the Bronze Age) the example always given was "the freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" (when there is no fire, of course).

I believe that claiming the right to freedom of speech  imposes a corresponding duty  - to listen.

The right to freedom of speech is allowed as long as it falls within the boundaries of the LAW, so it is a freedom with limitations and not a right to say anything you wish if it offends and/or causes fear/stress/panic/etc,etc,etc.

Similar to saying you can do anything you like, but having to bear the consequences if what you have done is against the law or offends someone/group/minority if you get caught.

Start pushing the envelope of your freedoms and see how quickly we all live under a fairly strict regime that is enforced by those in power.

It strikes me that those who cry they should be allowed Freedom of Speech, rarely seem to want to extend the same privileges to those with an opposite view to their own.