Freedom of Speech Debate. Oxford 2015

originally posted by: deliberator
I take your point DISRAELI but that was 1930 where the refusal to fight often led to being hanged.

More likely to be imprisonment, but I think you will find there was also a genuine change of perspective, when they were reacting to a real situation with real causes instead of just theorising on abstract possibilities

Remember when Churchill declared war the UK was not being attacked.
If Cameron declares war in the future where we are not being directly attacked there will be massive resistance against conscription. You only have to look at the youth of today to know this.

Churchill did not declare war. Chamberlain declared war. Churchill was an unemployed politician at the time.
It is very unlikely that a war fought under modern conditions could make use of a conscript army, so they won't want one. Was conscription demanded for either of the Iraq wars? So the situation you're discussing is never going to arise anyway.

a reply to: deliberator

You make valid and excellent academic points.

I follow, moderately, the right wing U.S. sites as well as the more traditional left news outlets. Many have shown videos of current students, feigning or actually suffering from mental trauma at the mere sight of the U.S. Flag. U.S. students, at U.S. universities making political statements via 'trauma'.

I find the answer to be simple. Gov't stays out of speech issues altogether. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back. There is, in effect, no line. Now grey area is the order of the day with neither side satisfied with the results.

This very subject is media empowered, social media being the most guilty of the lot.

Your example is the perfect choice. An isolated incident where the exception proves the rule.

I am an ill mannered lout. (Age is an excellent excuse). My manners are modified by personal consequence- financial, familial, more trouble than it's worth, personal health/well being and, of course, compassion- take offense?

Have at it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Churchill did not declare war. Chamberlain declared war. Churchill was an unemployed politician at the time.

Of course you are right. Stupid thing is I know it was Chamberlain. I was reading about Churchill's youth last night and I wasn't aware that his father was a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it may have been embedded on my brain when I wrote 'Churchill'.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You make valid and excellent academic points.

I placed the quotes in italics. They were not my points but I thought it was relevant to your post. I became aware of the difference between the UK and the US regarding freedom of speech on ATS. I have spent time reading about this.

This very subject is media empowered, social media being the most guilty of the lot.

I completely agree.

a reply to: greencmp

I rarely see so many digital tumbleweeds rolling through important topics like this. Maybe everyone is attentively watching all of the Oxford Union videos and formulating their comments.

Are you saying the videos have no merit? Did you watch any of them?

It is the holiday season after all although I take your point.

I do find it ironic that threads like this and LesMisanthrope's thread in November on the right to offend, do not attract many posts and yet threads which cause offence like transgenderism attract far far far many more posts.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: greencmp

I rarely see so many digital tumbleweeds rolling through important topics like this. Maybe everyone is attentively watching all of the Oxford Union videos and formulating their comments.

Are you saying the videos have no merit? Did you watch any of them?

It is the holiday season after all although I take your point.

I do find it ironic that threads like this and LesMisanthrope's thread in November on the right to offend, do not attract many posts and yet threads which cause offence like transgenderism attract far far far many more posts.

Not at all, great thread and I think this is the most important issue for western civilization.

Quite uncharacteristically of me, I looked at my posts and I hadn't actually made any declarative statements.

I was just surprised that there wasn't a contentious dispute involving both sides from post 1.

I watched them all and I even discovered the Tommy Robinson presentation thanks to your post.

a reply to: greencmp

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Perhaps I should have waited until after the holiday period to post the thread.

a reply to: TonyS

With regard to your view on freedom of thought, the link I gave talks about this.

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, freedom of speech differs from some other types of free action. If the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal cords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree.

Governments cannot prohibit freedom of expression. All they can do is impose sanctions on it and as you point out it just drives it underground.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: greencmp

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Perhaps I should have waited until after the holiday period to post the thread.

Could be, I think that the "right to abolish" misunderstanding was probably the source of the hesitation.

Any hint at inconsistency tends to curb dialog since people aren't necessarily sure what side of the debate the OP is advocating.

I agree that speech is always free, it is the consequences, if any, that can be sanctioned and only if those consequences are harmful.

I generally use the 'crowded movie theatre' analogy since it is so broadly discussed. If someone stands up in a crowded theatre and yells "fire!" prompting everyone to yell "sit down and shut up!", no crime has been committed. Conversely, if it results in harmful mayhem, a crime has been committed. The same goes for incitement to violence.

a reply to: greencmp

I generally use the 'crowded movie theatre' analogy since it is so broadly discussed. If someone stands up in a crowded theatre and yells "fire!" prompting everyone to yell "sit down and shut up!", no crime has been committed. Conversely, if it results in harmful mayhem, a crime has been committed. The same goes for incitement to violence.

Interesting analogy.