should we be allowed to say anything we want?

[Guest]

David Mitchell wrote an article the other day ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/public-apologies-gingrich-de-niro?commentpage=1#end-of-comments )

suggesting it's daft that anyone should get offended, and especially daft that people should have to appologise for it (what they say)

today, a student was jailed for 56 days - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets - for just saying something

I thought David Mitchells article was skating on thin ice, especially when he suggested that Jeremy Clarksons comment about public sector strikers ("I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families") was a comedic dig at the BBC's requirement to represent all opinions. ... yea, right!

I can't help feeling that turning a blind eye to nasty, racist, sexist, whatever, comments would be a backward step... but who decides where the line is drawn?

[Katster]

I haven't read what the guy wrote but I thought we lived in a country where freedom of speech existed. I probably won't like what he wrote, but who am I or anyone else to say he can't write it. I'd be more inclined to point out why he shouldn't and hear his arguments for why he thinks it's ok to write racist comments.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Look up The Social Contract by Rousseau. Although a very old text, it explains how we surrender some of our rights, so that we are protected ourselves. You surrender your right to say offensive things about people, so someone else couldn't do it to you.

I don't think racism should be tolerated in any sector of our society. Everyone should have the right not to be subjected to racist abuse. This case was a lot worse than others, if you actually read what he wrote. He's gone on to claim that he was "hacked" and "drunk" etc. but at the end of the day, your online persona these days is your online identity.

Obviously there's lines, and we can't be stupid about it. If it had been criticising him as a player etc. then fair enough, that's your own opinion. However, he was making specific offensive references to his race etc. and I'm pretty glad that it is illegal. Everyone deserves the right not to be abused be it online, or not. He may have just been saying something, but we've come along way to stop things like this (not just racist, others as well) from being said, and I wouldn't want it to be like it used to be. Back in the 80's, to have Muamba playing top flight and in the FA Cup, it would have been awful for him, and luckily it's not like it was, but i'd never wish it was again, when football appears to have moved on.

[Ed209]

This is what he said ...

Its some vile, poisonous stuff.

However, no matter how much I deplore what this prick wrote, imprisoning someone for things they have written on twitter really doesn't sit very well with me at all. The legalisty of it aside (and I think it probably should be illegal, although its by no means a clear cut issue) the punishment is all wrong in my opinion

[Rufus Gwertigan]

You should always be able to say what the fuck you want. However you should stand by what you have said, and know the consequences of what you say. Sometimes things are said to start an argument. Those that have met me will have probably seen me in my "If Jesus Comes Back We Will Kill Him Again" Tshirt. I have had so much hassle over that but I love the attention.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I can't say I feel too sorry for the bloke but I've read of people who, in my opinion, have committed worse crimes getting away without a custodial sentence.

[Kyelo]

To me what you are naturally is off limits in regards to violence or any aggressive actions: your sex, sexuality, race, age. All else is game but of course, it is murky waters.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

The area I have a little bit of moral doubt about is that of jokes. I'm not talking overtly racist ones (using race as an example). However if someone tells a joke with no ill intent, even if the content is somewhat dubious, should they be vilified? I have a problem with that level of censorship.

[grumpyhack]

When I kick off teacher training courses we have a discussion about ground rules and I invite the group to discuss what rules might be appropriate. Someone once said "No sex, politics or religion" to which my respose was that those were three of the things that made the world go round and it would seem daft to rule them out of conversations. So we moved on to respect for other people's opinions and the rights of free expression - "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." To that I would add that I (and everyone else) has a right to challenge a view.

I think on balance that I would defend open discussion and the rights for people to express views that I don't necessarily agree with. But I think the important thing is to challenge views and have a healthy debate. So often prejudice is based on ignorance and if it's not debated and discussed it will continue to fester. An example might be the fight back by the Anti Nazi League against the BNP. I wouldn't want to gag the BNP but I would like to see their bigoted views exposed and demolished.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

It's not just the judge's use of the English language which is worrying. He goes on to say "I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done". Surely he should be sentencing against a set of determined rules and sentences and not on behalf of general public outrage. Sentencing can be so arbitrary in this country.

[Ed209]

It's not just the judge's use of the English language which is worrying. He goes on to say "I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done". Surely he should be sentencing against a set of determined rules and sentences and not on behalf of general public outrage. Sentencing can be so arbitrary in this country.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

When I kick off teacher training courses we have a discussion about ground rules and I invite the group to discuss what rules might be appropriate. Someone once said "No sex, politics or religion" to which my respose was that those were three of the things that made the world go round and it would seem daft to rule them out of conversations. So we moved on to respect for other people's opinions and the rights of free expression - "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." To that I would add that I (and everyone else) has a right to challenge a view.

I think on balance that I would defend open discussion and the rights for people to express views that I don't necessarily agree with. But I think the important thing is to challenge views and have a healthy debate. So often prejudice is based on ignorance and if it's not debated and discussed it will continue to fester. An example might be the fight back by the Anti Nazi League against the BNP. I wouldn't want to gag the BNP but I would like to see their bigoted views exposed and demolished.

[t8yman]

Speaking your mind is a good indication of how stupid you may be. I applaud the early warning system.

[eFestivals]

I thought David Mitchells article was skating on thin ice, especially when he suggested that Jeremy Clarksons comment about public sector strikers ("I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families") was a comedic dig at the BBC's requirement to represent all opinions. ... yea, right!

It was. Watch the whole thing if you can find it anywhere, and it's very very clearly a dig at the BBC's requirement for balance and not a dig at the strikers. Anyone who thinks differently to that after seeing the whole thing needs their head examined.

That Mitchell article (I hadn't realised it was him until now, I'd read it the other day) is spot on. It males its point very well, and points out just how stupid society has become.

[eFestivals]

Someone was jailed in Lincolnshire the other day for 'making offensive phone calls' for phoning the police after a copper had been shot and saying something like "good, I hope more coppers get shot".

While it's not a nice thing to say, it's hardly a jailing offence to express a dislike of coppers - cos if it is, no crim could ever be released from jail.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

there is never any right of wrong answer to this... Leaving it to a judge to make a rational decision seems about as sensible to me as you can get...

Unless you can show someone as suffered directly from someones comments then I don't see an issue myself... So slander would be an issue but holding a general opinion (no matter how negative) would be fine...

[lifelessfool]

For me freedom of speech should be constrained in the same way that J S Mill believes freedom should be constrained. If it causes harm then its a bit of a gray area, which for me is anything racist or something to incite racism/violence etc... But even that is massively open to interpretation so maybe we should just be able to say what we want.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

For me freedom of speech should be constrained in the same way that J S Mill believes freedom should be constrained. If it causes harm then its a bit of a gray area, which for me is anything racist or something to incite racism/violence etc... But even that is massively open to interpretation so maybe we should just be able to say what we want.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I don't think he should have been jailed for what is essentially being obnoxious. I think a Community Order (I think that's what they are called) should have been passed eg doing 200 hours community service. That said, he is now getting an education like no other he'll have experienced.

On a separate note one of my friends called my other friend a lazy Paki at Glastonbury because he wasn't getting out of his tent in the morning (he's actually of Indian origin). This was met with laughter all around including from within the tent. Now these two people love each other dearly and there was no intent to hurt. I mention this because it's an example of not being able to safely define the boundary between having the craic and causing offence. The demarcation point seems very 'fluid'.

[eFestivals]

The demarcation point seems very 'fluid'.

Yup - offence is in the ears of the hearer, it's not there by default in the use of a word.

There's laws in this country that word things in the way of "causing offence", but often that offensive can be caused by the stupidity of the listener rather than by what is actually said.

As an example, efests had someone threatening to sue for what a user had posted on these forums. While I understood why the injured party wasn't happy with what had been posted, the actual wording that was used was not the insult of him that he took it be.

So in that instance, all of the offence he took was the result of his inability to read something properly &/or his inability to properly understand the English language - and so by rights I really should have told him to shove it and that I'd see him in court.

(the actual outcome was different, because it was easier all-round for me to handle things in a more conciliatory way).

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I work for a housing association and was accused by a tenant once of being racist. She said I wouldn't get her kitchen sorted out because she was black and that I would have sorted out a white (am I allowed to say that in this increasingly PC environment?) persons kitchen. I duly notified higher management within my organisation and her support worker was sent out to talk to her (the support worker also happening to be black). The support worker came back with an apology from the tenant who admitted that she had played the race card to try to get something she wasn't entitled to. A lovely experience that was!

[Kyelo]

The area I have a little bit of moral doubt about is that of jokes. I'm not talking overtly racist ones (using race as an example). However if someone tells a joke with no ill intent, even if the content is somewhat dubious, should they be vilified? I have a problem with that level of censorship.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

My best friend is black of Nigerian and Jamaican descent. We continually banter and joke about each others race/cultures.

[eFestivals]

Who's to say who is right?

any individual hearer, only for themselves.

However, that still has flaws. Language is very powerful, and one person can't control where their words impact. So, for example, the friendly use of (say) the 'n' word between 'brothers' can spiral out of their control and give the green light to racists to use the same word in a different manner.

Which brings us back to the idea that it's necessary to regulate what is and isn't acceptable to use, for the greater good. It's a widely accepted principle for things other than language, but when it comes to language people tend to be less accepting of that idea as it seems a much greater impingement on their personal freedoms.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Possibly because ones own language is close to ones thought, and nobody wants to be told what they should be thinking.