Sunday Symposium: Freedom of Speech

[Dog Pants]

After a festive break, lets get back into our discussions. I had a train of thought this morning which led me to something to talk about. Opinions and the expression of them. Opinions, it is said, are like arseholes - everybody has one. It is also often said that everyone's entitled to their opinion. An extension of the same sentiment, and something often misused in the US, is freedom of speech.

So to begin with, is everyone entitled to an opinion? There's nothing written in law anywhere that people are allowed to believe whatever they like on any subject, nor is there anything saying they aren't. It's just something assumed, for right or wrong. You can't really stop people having opinions though, just as you can't stop yourself having one. Opinions are personal until they are voiced, either deliberately or incidentally. I'll get to the former later, but by holding an opinion on a subject it will likely be implied during discussion even if it isn't meant to be, or can be voiced if asked. In this way an opinion can be made known without getting into freedom of speech, as the person isn't looking for a way to voice their opinion. Most people would probably argue that anyone is entitled to an opinion whether they agree with it or not, but what if that opinion goes against basic human morality? What if someone were of the opinion that the age of consent be abolished, or that you should be able to torture people for parking offences? You can't stop someone having those opinions (well, unless you use political police as various regimes have done). People seem to commonly associate the inability to prevent someone having an opinion with an obligation to give that opinion credibility though, and that's where my first argument lies. I would argue that nobody is entitled to an opinion. Having an opinion and being entitled to it are not the same thing, and I would propose that someone must have a justifiable and credible opinion before it has any right to be acknowledged. Everybody can have a right to earn the opportunity to have their opinion listened to. By way of example, the media can suffer badly from entitling controversial opinions equal weight as more reasonable ones in the interest of objectivity.

Second then, and slightly less grey but more often abused, is freedom of speech. This is common on the internet - that someone with an opinion is entitled to voice it in any way they see fit, and that prevention of that is censorship. As the moderator of our wonderful forum I've brushed up against this a little myself, although even our most delinquent members pale in comparison to commenters in the wilds of the internet. My argument here is similar - if you want to promote your opinion in public you have to earn that right by presenting a good argument. Do it by putting a spittle flecked all-caps comment on a YouTube video and I would argue that not only does your voice not have any entitlement to be taken seriously, but it has no right to even be heard.

Those are my arguments (but not necessarily my opinions). What do you people think?

[Dr. kitteny berk]

I think you're a complete and utter cupcake, but I won't hold it against you.

Seriously though, am opinion is (or should be) someone's own, personally formed thought on any given matter, and as such, they have a right to it, even if it is utterly, and completely fucking backwards.

Unfortunately, this falls down when you realise that humans are, as a whole, fucking morons. Mildly racist Dave down the road sees the words sharia law causes cancer on the front of the daily fail. Suddenly, without the ability to think about the words he read (because mildly racist Dave is thick like potato) he's convinced that Islam is the cause of his nan's throat cancer, not the 60 a day she's smoked since she was 3, and joins Britain First, telling his racist mates that Islamic extremists killed his nan.

So yes, people should be allowed opinions, but only allowed to voice them if they're capable of critical thought. Unfortunately, we don't have tests for critical thought, so you've kinda gotta let the idiots speak too. Sadly this means you have to accept that mildly racist Dave is going to tell you about the jihad against his nan.


Freedom of speech? Oh fuck yes, abso-fucking-lutely, but people need to accept that if they have the right to free speech, so do I.

Tell me your opinion. If I disagree with your opinion, I'll tell you, then tell you why I think you're wrong, and if you're capable of conversation at that point (rather than just hitting or insulting me) you can tell me why you think I'm wrong, this is called a conversation, and people have forgotten how to do it.

[Joose]

I think its important to remember that having an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. You cant stop someone having an opinion, no matter what that opinion is. Its not just that you shouldn't, you physically cannot stop them. You can, however, stop someone expressing their opinion.

I'm actually not all that in favour of letting people express whatever opinion they have regardless of what it is. Im not saying that people should be silenced merely for disagreeing with me, but I do think there are some extremes of opinion where I would be ok with it being illegal to express. Obvious stuff would be hate speech that actively encourages people to do bad things; for example if someone were to stand in the street shouting about how we should all go beat up the gays/blacks/muslims then I would not be upset about that person being dragged away by the police. I would also extend that though, to cover people where reasonable evidence can be shown that what they are expressing isn't actually their opinion, they are just making it sound like it is to dupe the gullible. You think vaccines cause autism? Show me solid evidence to support your claims or shut the fuck up.

Freedom of speech as a legal concept is an interesting one. Lots of people (and everything i'm saying here is pretty american centric, as that seems to be where this comes up the most) seem to think that it is a legal protection for them to say whatever they want and no one can stop them. That's completely untrue. Freedom of speech means that *the government* cant stop you expressing your opinions. If a business owner throws you out or a forum mod bans you, thats got bum all to do with freedom of speech as a concept.

I cant remember where I first heard it, but I like what someone pointed out about this once: If someone falls back on freedom of speech to defend their right to express something, what they are essentially saying is the best thing that can be said about their opinion is that it isn't actually illegal.

Like Berk says, complete freedom of expression would be lovely in a world that doesn't include idiots, horrible people, and horrible people who want to manipulate idiots. Unfortunately, we don't like in that world.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

Like Berk says, complete freedom of expression would be lovely in a world that doesn't include idiots, horrible people, and horrible people who want to manipulate idiots. Unfortunately, we don't like in that world.

STOP FUCKING AGREEING WITH ME YOU MASSIVE CUNT!


That shit makes me uncomfortable.

[Joose]

Stop being so reasonable!

[Dr. kitteny berk]

I can't help it, I've gone old

[Dog Pants]

You've redeemed yourself somewhat by calling Joose a cupcake in massive bold letters.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

[Dog Pants]

I would also extend that though, to cover people where reasonable evidence can be shown that what they are expressing isn't actually their opinion, they are just making it sound like it is to dupe the gullible. You think vaccines cause autism? Show me solid evidence to support your claims or shut the fuck up.

Good point, this is a dangerous thing because it influences other peoples' decisions who might not be in a position to be knowledgeable about the subject. When it's done by people in a position of authority or influence it's particularly problematic.

Interesting case study from the last few days: The police are apparently looking into comments made by Katie Hopkins after she called the nurse who's currently suffering from ebola a sweaty Glaswegian and that Scotland had sent 'us' an ebola bomb. Now, my opinion on her is that she's a vile and self-serving sensationalist and I would have no pity for her whatsoever if she were prosecuted, but is it really right? Is this a valuable use of police resources, and are they setting a dangerous precedent?

[HereComesPete]

What do you people think?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if they're fucking dribblers, and they're entitled to say it as far as I'm concerned (insert Voltaire here, fnar). If that includes the lets go 'insert racial and/or bigoted statement here' bashing then so be it. As long as they're aware that such actions do not fit the opinions our society as a shared reality have decided upon and as such has listed non-conformance to these opinions as illegal acts with the resulting consequences attached.

Unfortunately we're not very good at making sure everyone knows that these opinions exist or at making sure everyone follows the same rules (well thay're all there for public record but they're boring so pretty much no one reads them in favour of doing anything else), judges absorb a lot of that power when making their own calls on how people should be sentenced, guidelines allow for scope, the court of public opinion isn't as logical as the courts of justice.

The big problem many people have is expressing opinion in such a way as it's merely opinion is alien to them because they are shit at doing it. The culture that breeds in so many places, especially here in the UK is that entitlement includes opinion being as important as fact because your convictions allow you to argue it as such. Well done us for creating a society that generally allows this, bad form us for using it to sink towards idiocracy through sensationalist rags and the pointless minutiae we regurgitate via twitter and such.

Katie Hopkins - if we prosecute her for holding an opinion in a public forum then we're in trouble, the backlash against letting him with the hook hands and other 'hate preachers' ply their trade without prosecution will fuel Britain first and their ilk. Not to mention the fact that it would set a dangerous precedent, people who have been prosecuted so far are those that have directly attacked their target, if this changes to anyone saying something about anyone else in general terms then we had best prosecute all politicians, footballers, men in pubs and radio personalities for espousing opinions that someone may find negative about a third party.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

Katie Hopkins is rather clever with the way she works, she outright aims to offend people without doing anything illegal, Unfortunately she's a ratings boosting outrage machine, so they keep throwing her at the telly to gently upset people.

[Dog Pants]

I don't think she's that clever. She realised that being an obnoxious snob got her air time so now she's playing on it by being as unpleasant as she can.