Free speech

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Free speech

Postby Radioactive_hairgel » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:53 pm

Is it still free?
Thease days evreything seems so P.C and evreyone is so senstive that people like my mum ( a dentist) are forever watching thier backs (not that she would ever say anything) but it seems easy to file a complaint thease days or sue for somthing or other that half my mum's job thease days is filing evreything to cover herself in case of such an event,
but even so i reckon that alot of people are still to scared to say what that would really want to, plus organisation such as the FCC (that's american not sure what the english alternative is) are also very controlling!
Obviously i know there's rules and regulations and naturally there are things that are wiser left unsaid so in a way this subject is more of- where do the limits of free speech end and what can the consequences for free speech lead to????
Profaniny may also come into free speech, techically individuals should be allowed to swear all they want- or is it just carless of them to not think about others feelings if i could affend?
Also i feel the human race is still very judgmental which is probably why, hahaha
anyhow fancy a conflab?
:D
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. --Will Rogers

www.myspace.com/marthaduncanmusic
Radioactive_hairgel
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:42 am

Postby parnassus » Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:39 pm

Profaniny may also come into free speech, techically individuals should be allowed to swear all they want- or is it just carless of them to not think about others feelings if i could affend?


Profanity has been against the law for hundreds of years. The only reason why it is more widespread now is because people have forgotten the meaning of the words they're using. If they sat down and really thought about what they were saying, they might not want to swear so much. It is crude and impolite and shows a very poor grasp of the English language.

Political correctness started out as a good idea, as a lot of language used to be very discriminatory. (Consider the old terms for dyspraxia, Minimal Brain Damage and Clumsy Child Syndrome. At least we don't get labelled with that kind of thing any more.) But I agree with you that now it is being taken to ridiculous extremes. I can't believe that 'disabled toilets' are now 'accessible toilets'. Hell's biscuits! Aren't all toilets 'accessible'? (Well, apart from the ones in Cambridge Railway Station.)
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:54 am

The big problem with political correctness is that it can actually be quite insulting. Things like calling a short person "vertically challenged" make it sound as though "short" is a terrible word that must never be spoken. There's nothing wrong with being short. The same thing applies to calling disabled toilets accessible toilets - is there something shameful about the word disabled?
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby mattie » Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:31 pm

it isn't free. the governmetn should stop interfering and start dealing with more important issues. i don't agree with people using insulting terms like they used to but do they really need to make everything so politically correct. i still think people should be allowed to express their opinion reghardless of government interference
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby C » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:35 pm

Thirteen-thirty-seven wrote:The big problem with political correctness is that it can actually be quite insulting. Things like calling a short person "vertically challenged" make it sound as though "short" is a terrible word that must never be spoken. There's nothing wrong with being short. The same thing applies to calling disabled toilets accessible toilets - is there something shameful about the word disabled?


I agree with you. I was browsing the internet the other day and typed 'dyspraxia' into google. I happened to come across a University's (can't remember which one) page about students with specific learning difficulties. At the bottom they had a list of 'terms to use' and 'terms to avoid.' It said something like avoid using terms such as 'S/he's dyslexic' or 'S/he's dypraxic' and say instead 'S/he has dyslexia/dyspraxia.' I thought that went a bit too far; I mean, as a person who has dyspraxia I wouldn't be at all offended if I heard someone say 'She's dyspraxic' instead of 'she has dyspraxia'!
C
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 11:21 am
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Postby parnassus » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:21 am

She has a scarf.
He has a cat.
She has dyspraxia.

That construction can make it sound as though dyspraxia is an object that you can detach from yourself at will. In reality it's a part of us. We are dyspraxic through and through - it's not something we own or have control over, and I'm not ashamed or worried about that. This kind of politically correct language implicitly suggested that being dyspraxic is a bad thing. If the word is bad, surely the condition must be even worse?
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby intowiz » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:07 pm

free speech is a much needed thing for everyone but it has become less and less now days, free speach entails these days being shot arrested thrown in jail fined hit on the head by a policeman and his handy trungeon.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby intowiz » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:41 pm

i renember on the news taht there was a small peaceful demonstration in london where young peaple were protesting against something (i think it was the was but im not sure). so the police turned up told them to shove off unless they wanted to get arrested, fined everyone there even peaple walking past and told them if they did it again it would be put on record as a second offence and they could face jail, why? because they didnt ask the goverment official if they could first. what the hell is the point of protesting if you have to ask first. yes we want to protest against your war. no you cant. oh. thats what could happen if we had to ask everytime.
they tell you what you can protest about. another, a man who had set up outside of downing street or parliment (i cant renember which) who and many signs was protesting against the war, due to free speach laws and it being a public place he was camped at the police and goverment couldnt do anything but one morning around 1.00am the police turned up ripped his signs and took them away leaving him with a couple.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby parnassus » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:11 pm

what the hell is the point of protesting if you have to ask first. yes we want to protest against your war. no you cant. oh. thats what could happen if we had to ask everytime.


The police normally go along to protests - not to interfere, but to make sure the protestors don't get violent or just block off the entire street and cause a nuisance. That happens sometimes, so protests are monitored. You can say what you like, providing you don't physically hurt people or disrupt their day.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:08 pm

Also, the police protect the protestors from violent attacks from people who may disagree with their views.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby Hermionefan5 » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:36 am

There are protected forms of Free Speech and then there are the unprotected.

Unprotected forms of Free Speech in America include:

Copywright: If you violate the copyright laws by using someone else's song, book, tv program, movie, or graphic art without their consent or payment you are liable for it (from Media and Culture Volume 4 by Richard Campbell, et. al.).


Libel: If you defame a person or company in written or broadcast expression you get into trouble. The public statement must be false, it must have caused damages or injury to the person---like loss of a job or harm to reputation.
The publisher of the article must have been negligent (from Media and Culture Volume 4 by Richard Campbell, et. al.).


"Invasion of privacy: If you use unauthorized taperecorders, wiretaps, microphones, or other survaillance to illegally record someone's private doings. If you publish private matters like s*xual activities, health, or economic status. If you use someone's name or photo without their authorization for commercial benefit or advertising" from Media and Culture Volume 4 by Richard Campbell, et. al.).

Obscenities: If the average person would find this word/image inappropriate or offensive then it is considered to be an obscenity. It depicts or describes sexual conduct in an offensive way (From Media and Culture Volume 4 by Richard Campbell, et. al.). It lacks literary or artistic value (From Media and Culture Volume 4 by Richard Campbell, et. al. pp. 539-553).
Image is from "Gilmore Girls" Season 1
"You are the same as everyone else."--"Forrest Gump"
"I want you to go out there and skate for these people like I have seen you skate."--"The Cutting Edge"
User avatar
Hermionefan5
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: The United States of America :)

Postby Page » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:08 am

I also heard somewhere that speech meant to cause hazards (such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre/cinema so people get trampled while trying to escape when there really is no fire) is not protected speech.
User avatar
Page
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:54 am
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Postby Radioactive_hairgel » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:45 pm

Page wrote:I also heard somewhere that speech meant to cause hazards (such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre/cinema so people get trampled while trying to escape when there really is no fire) is not protected speech.


HAHAHAHAHAHA, imagine if evreyone just turned around and your sat there red as a tomato like :|
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. --Will Rogers

www.myspace.com/marthaduncanmusic
Radioactive_hairgel
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:42 am

Postby Katielauren2001 » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:42 pm

I think we are intitled to more free speech than we have already but we are far better off than some of the other countries in the world.I do think the goverment should take a back seat and give us more free speech without being thrown into jail.
Dyspraxia is me I would never change that :)
Katielauren2001
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Dork_Lord » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:46 pm

I believe current laws surrounding free speech in the UK at least are acceptable.
User avatar
Dork_Lord
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Cardiff

Next

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest