What the NHS have to put up with

[Mitz]

i think we agree in principle, but don’t agree on what this is. for example:

you can go on a pub and say to someone that they are a cunt. the consequence may be that you will be punched in the head.

you can live in this country, and go outside and start shouting racial abuse at someone. the consequence may be that you will be arrested.

you can be in south korea and go about saying the supreme leader is a fat weirdo. the consequences may be tortured to death in a prison camp.

none of these, the way i think of it, represent free speech, per se. as long as people have free will they are free to say whatever they want to say. but in every, or almost every, society, there will be consequences that accompany particular types of speech. so i think these are all just varying degrees of qualified free speech. what we might talk about is variation in the consequences of exercising the ability to speak and choosing to say particular things.

edited to add for clarity: i can’t think of any society where there would be absolute freedom of speech with no consequences, whether the consequences be formal or informal.

Free speech (to me at least) doesn't mean that there can be no consequences. And the right to express free speech doesn't supersede the rights of others not to be abused. As I see it, it's not a single solitary right but part of a set of rights enjoyed by those who live in free and democratic societies. Those rights come with some rules and they largely revolve around not infringing on the rights of others.

I've got a right to try and better my life. I don't have the right to do it by stealing from you.

I think we agree. Mostly.

Bit of a dogger, eh?

We obviously haven't met in person yet, have we?

Nor in my opinion does free speech mean you can say what you like without consequence - free speech you can say what you like but anyone else can respond and say what they like back.

Absolutely there can be consequences and one person's right to say what they like doesn't override another person's right not to be abused or feel threatened. Offended, sure, but not abused or threatened. That's why free speech exists but is not totally unlimited and can come with consequences. But if you're prepared to pay the price then the mic is open. IF anyone wants to listen. IMHO.

I write like I talk, and if you look back at some of my earlier exploits around these parts you’ll see that hasn’t always panned out well - hence the point blank refusal to go any further. And unless someone is a complete bellend - which I don’t believe you are - I’d rather not.

The look in someone’s eyes and their body language is something I was taught to pay attention to, and I do, because regardless of what the mouth is saying it’s often different to what is actually meant with lots of folk. Write that down behind a screen it’s lost and you can only take the words for how they’re written.

I’m worse in real life by the way.

No harm no foul.

[emoji8]

It's all good then.

I can be a complete bellend tho and although I do try not to be, I'm not always successful.

Completely agree with sentiments of your post tho mate.

Worse? You're all good to me mate. Appreciate your input.

 

[Mawsley]

We obviously haven't met in person yet, have we?

I doubt it, not unless you've come to my place for an interview.

 

[Mitz]

I doubt it, not unless you've come to my place for an interview.

View attachment 238308

An "interview"? That's a very polite way to describe it.

 

[ZT]

I doubt it, not unless you've come to my place for an interview.

View attachment 238308

Casting couch?

 

[Mawsley]

Casting couch?

Not at the moment, sweetie, I’m cooking supper

 

[zouzounaki]

Free speech (to me at least) doesn't mean that there can be no consequences. And the right to express free speech doesn't supersede the rights of others not to be abused. As I see it, it's not a single solitary right but part of a set of rights enjoyed by those who live in free and democratic societies. Those rights come with some rules and they largely revolve around not infringing on the rights of others.

so you see free speech as a qualified right, rather than an absolute right?

it might be i’m a bit of a weirdo but it’s not easy for me to think of it that way. because speech is an action, something people are able to naturally do. it would be like saying you believe in the right to look at things freely.

and similarly if you were stalking someone or watching them naked through a keyhole, there may be consequences.

what, other than consequences of saying something, whether they would be formal or informal ones, could be a threat to free speech?

i also think people moderate their own speech. there are thing i might like to say sometimes, for example, when i am at work. but i don’t, as i might get sacked, the colleagues might think i have lost it, etc etc.

it might be that we aspire to live in a world where people autonomously choose to moderate their speech in ways that allow everyone to get along and not cause frequent trouble for each other but it may not be realistic at this point in time.

entertain me, i’m just trying to understand this perspective.

 

[Mawsley]

*reconsiders the whole sofa/video/casting thing*

 

[Crewella]

so you see free speech as a qualified right, rather than an absolute right?

it might be i’m a bit of a weirdo but it’s not easy for me to think of it that way. because speech is an action, something people are able to naturally do. it would be like saying you believe in the right to look at things freely.

and similarly if you were stalking someone or watching them naked through a keyhole, there may be consequences.

what, other than consequences of saying something, whether they would be formal or informal ones, could be a threat to free speech?

i also think people moderate their own speech. there are thing i might like to say sometimes, for example, when i am at work. but i don’t, as i might get sacked, the colleagues might think i have lost it, etc etc.

it might be that we aspire to live in a world where people autonomously choose to moderate their speech in ways that allow everyone to get along and not cause frequent trouble for each other but it may not be realistic at this point in time.

entertain me, i’m just trying to understand this perspective.

The definition of 'free speech' reads as follows - no mention of self-censorship ............ or restraint. It's not the point?

"the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."​

 

[zouzounaki]

The definition of 'free speech' reads as follows - no mention of self-censorship ............ or restraint. It's not the point?

"the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."​

where did you get this definition? i’m not interested in somebody’s definition at this point, really.

but it seems to me that realistically there have to be some limits to free speech. in which case it isn’t really free. it s limited.

and i’m not talking about self censorship or restraint either. when i don’t say certain things at work it is not because i am censoring or restraining myself, rather i am making a considered decision about what thing it is that i actually say.

 

[Crewella]

where did you get this definition? i’m not interested in somebody’s definition at this point, really.

but it seems to me that realistically there have to be some limits to free speech. in which case it isn’t really free. it s limited.

and i’m not talking about self censorship or restraint either. when i don’t say certain things at work it is not because i am censoring or restraining myself, rather i am making a considered decision about what thing it is that i actually say.

I guess it's your perogative to make up the definitions as you go along ............. but whether you're interested or not, this is what Wiki says!

Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.​