[Tau-killer]

The idea of freedom of speech is one of the great tenets of Western Democracy itself. The right to be able to express any opinion, to buy any newspaper which can say anything it likes, are so ingrained into our culture that we often take them for granted.

But, despite this, there will always be limits. It is difficult to imagine a world where there could be complete 100% freedom of speech. For example, very few would accept the justification of 'free speech' for someone who started talking loudly on his mobile phone in the middle of a concert performance. On Tau-Online, 'free speech' is not an acceptable excuse for flaming someone. So clearly, there are boundaries.

The problem comes when we try to consider where exactly these boundaries should be - and the case of the Oxford Union in the UK this week has made this problem very clear.

The Oxford Union is due to hold a 'Free Speech' conference. And to this conference it has invited, amongst others, two very controversial men. These are David Irving, a historian notorious for his views on the Holocaust - and Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP - a political party accused by many of having racist policies concerning immigration and ethnic minorities.

The Oxford Union has come under intense criticism for inviting such people. Some speakers have cancelled, thereby refusing to take part. Many others have said that by inviting such people to such a prestigious event, they were unacceptably legitimising their views.

The Oxford Union has defended its choice of speakers by claiming that at a 'free speech' event, it makes sense to invite people with both main stream and non main stream views to attend. It claims that the best way to deal with such views is to air them in public - where they can be publically destroyed in debate, rather than left to foster underground.

So what do you think? Is the Oxford Union right to invite such people? And, more generally, where should the line on free speech be drawn?

[compubrains]

The Oxford Union is right. Should we ban the sale of Mein Kampf because of it's anti-semetic views? No, sometimes you need to explore the other side of the issue, even if you know it's wrong. After all, who's close-minded then? When you are at the point where you shut out all racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry, ect., you become no better than the people who spew this kind of stuff. I have read various arguments in my life for superior whatnot, and yet I still believe we are all equal. If I can conclude this after reading prejudice arguments, why can't anyone else?

Governmental organizations that filter swear words only empower the swear words. True, there would be very scary time when the future would become uncertain. However, while people might all be paralyzed with whatever irrational fear of words befalls them, it would be all in their heads. So yes, the economy would slump, maybe even crash. But then swear words would begin to lose all but their literal definitions. And they would cease to be vile. And of course with a capitalist economy, crashes are just part of the natural cycle. Now is an ideal time to allow all swear words, as the economy is about to crash anyway. People are excessively buying things on credit they will never be able to pay back and the Dow Jones industrial is very high now (when of course everyone will just sell at once and crash it anyway).

[GeekyGator]

Really, besides private sites and events, such as T.O. or a concert hall where you choose to attend, I think the only case for disallowing freedom of speech should be national security- and not opinion national security, like "THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD A NUKE" national security.

The Oxford Union is right, but the other speakers have a right not to attend. Call it freedom to not speak.

[Faolin]

I agree with the Oxford Union. My policy is that if your opinion is worth defending, then it can be defended in a rational argument, no matter who it's against.

I've got into the same argument the Oxford Union is facing now myself. I could just choose to ignore the ignorants/racists/bigots I run into in my everyday life, which would probably make me alot happier. But these are precisley the sorts of people who, in my mind, are in most need of convincing. There's only so much use you can get of complaining endlessly to likeminded people about the shortcomings of other points of view.

[crazedmongoose2003]

Woah woah woah, free speech has it's limits legally, and that limit is private and government organizations.


You cannot go into a school and talk to children about your porn fantasies.

You cannot go into a concert hall and against the wishes of the administration shout loudly on your mobile phone.

And in case of private organizations like TO, they make the rules.


What's important is that as a government we aren't going to persecute people for their opinions in the privacy of their own homes or amongst their own friends or in open grounds.

To how much a degree you should allow free speech in events and private locales is up to the discretion of the owner then. For example, if you say antisemetic things here at Tau Online, the staff are legally allowed to remove you (ie. ban). Similar rules do not occur at Stormfront obviously.

[Aun LeKeth]

Well said Compubrains, well said indeed! I will personally be sending a letter of support to The Oxford Union for their efforts for freedom of speech.

[GeekyGator]

Originally Posted by crazedmongoose2003

Woah woah woah, free speech has it's limits legally, and that limit is private and government organizations.


You cannot go into a school and talk to children about your porn fantasies.

Forgot about that one... :-[

Anyways, Just as there is a right to free speech there is a right for people to express their opinions by not attending said event.

[compubrains]

Originally Posted by crazedmongoose2003

Woah woah woah, free speech has it's limits legally, and that limit is private and government organizations.


You cannot go into a school and talk to children about your porn fantasies.

You cannot go into a concert hall and against the wishes of the administration shout loudly on your mobile phone.

And in case of private organizations like TO, they make the rules.


What's important is that as a government we aren't going to persecute people for their opinions in the privacy of their own homes or amongst their own friends or in open grounds.

To how much a degree you should allow free speech in events and private locales is up to the discretion of the owner then. For example, if you say antisemetic things here at Tau Online, the staff are legally allowed to remove you (ie. ban). Similar rules do not occur at Stormfront obviously.

None of your examples are infact legally binding. I don't know how it works in other countries, but Freedom of Speech in the US refers to the fact that the government cannot make laws infringing on free speech. It has nothing to do with private organizations, which often reserve the right to refuse service. They can excercise this right at anytime they feel like. How you got into a school classroom suggests you are either a teacher, a student, or a guest. Guests will be banned, teachers will be fired, and students will be taken disipliniary action against. None of these things are legally binding, and technically anyone can go into a school and say porn fantasies. The school just has the right to kick you out afterwords, as it's their property and not yours. Just like I have the right to kick you out of my house at any time for any reason after I invite you over. So I can go into a concert hall... You see where this is going. It does NOT have legal limits. You are thinking of the right to refuse service and the right to own land.

[icer190]

Originally Posted by CompuBrains

None of your examples are infact legally binding. I don't know how it works in other countries, but Freedom of Speech in the US refers to the fact that the government cannot make laws infringing on free speech. It has nothing to do with private organizations, which often reserve the right to refuse service. They can excercise this right at anytime they feel like. How you got into a school classroom suggests you are either a teacher, a student, or a guest. Guests will be banned, teachers will be fired, and students will be taken disipliniary action against. None of these things are legally binding, and technically anyone can go into a school and say porn fantasies. The school just has the right to kick you out afterwords, as it's their property and not yours. Just like I have the right to kick you out of my house at any time for any reason after I invite you over. So I can go into a concert hall... You see where this is going. It does NOT have legal limits. You are thinking of the right to refuse service and the right to own land.

It DOES have legal limits. For it is those very same legal limits that set the perameters that you are speaking of!

The Supreme Court has ruled, and set precidence for, the types of cases that are listed. Thus making them LEGALY binding.

[killalltauwithstarcannons]

"i dont agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death you right to say it" - Voltaire


if the protesters in Oxford are all about free speech what about the speakers right to free speech, is it not right that people hear what they have to say in a dedicated forum and counter thier arguements in front of them in a fair way