Oxford Debate: Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend
so, suits from oxfords had a really posh, really sophisticated debate about free speech ~2 weeks ago, and i think it's interdasting so here
pro
against (this guy's surname is probably why he's against the right to offend)
pro (his brother was better, RIP ;_;)
against (wearing my aunt's bathroom curtains)
pro (that's a lot of self promoting)
against (at least he got good wrist exercise)
so, there, what do you think?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I go to oxford, and I'd just like to say that these suits are not at all representative of us.
With respect to the debate, while I didn't attend, Brendan O'Neill is a complete dickhead to people and that should be your first clue about his general morality.
The 'freedom of speech' side falls down when you poke them at all really - they aren't asking for free speech, they're asking for free expression, for one thing. Even then, expression can currently get you a prison sentence, and that's not necessarily bad - recently a girl is being put on trial in the UK for 'expressing her opinion' that a boy should kill himself, repeatedly, which he then proceeded to do, and in my mind she is clearly partially responsible.
Basically, it's conservatives pretending massive terrifying change is happening when in the reality of law things changed a long long time ago, and most people wouldn't question said changes these days when the link is made clear.
difference between free speech and free expression being..?
but no, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences of speech.
More from that debate. Freedom of speech and right to offend
For
enter link description here
Against
enter link description here
...that clap
Freedom of speech, but you are still accountable if what you say has implications.
For all the people saying "freedom of speech, but you are aren't free from consequences." What does that even mean? Couldn't being put in jail be considered 'consequences'? In which case 'freedom of speech' has no meaning. If you're talking about 'people can disagree with you,' then I'd say just about everybody agrees with that.
What I think people are talking about is losing employment because of something you say. In which case, I disagree. Freedom of Speech currently means that the government can't deprive you of liberty or property because of what you say - you are protected against public censorship of your speech. However, I think we live in a time period where there needs to be protections against the private sector as well.
People say 'oh, but it's their business, they can run it how they want.' Well, the government already puts a large number of restrictions on how employers can run their business, things like mimimum wage laws, work standards, and anti-discrimination laws (it's illegal to fire somebody based on race, for instance). Those are all restrictions on how an employer can run their business.
"Yeah, but speech is something you do, but you were born gay and/or black!" This is true. But let's keep in mind it's also illegal to fire somebody based on their religions, which certainly is a matter of choice and not of birth (even though you were born into it.) And here we're talking about the exact same Amendment as Freedom of Speech.
But let's take this to the extreme, did you know that, with the exception of a few states, you can be fired for political affiliation? Oh, you said you voted for Obama on facebook? Well, now you're fired. And it's completely legal. Maybe you're perfectly fine with that, because 'Murica. But if you aren't, you can start from there and tiptoe outward to exactly where you think the line should be drawn.
Personally, I think Freedom of Speech should be just as applicable in protecting from the private sector as it is from the public sector so long as the speech act is taking place outside of work and outside of the official capacity of your job. (IE: Post a racist joke on twitter? Protected. Use a company-issued account to post a racist joke on twitter? Fire away.) I'm open to the idea of making an exception for PR people, whose job is literally public image, except I'm not sure how that could be legally implimented without creating a giant loophole.
Now people are going to get after me saying 'but, the company will look bad and won't make as much money!' (because yes, whenever I buy from Sony I first make sure that Bob and Sally in R&D never told a rape joke.) To this I say, maybe, but I don't care. Almost every legal right is going to have its drawbacks, much as laws protecting anti-war protesters from the government lend themselves to protecting neo-nazis. The right against unwarrented search and seizure is going to lead to some criminals getting away. Protecting the freedom of speech of employees from their employers might have the drawback of theoretically causing a certain company to have a bad reputation and therefore making less money. I don't care. I know this makes me a bad American, but I don't think profit margins should be held up above all other standards.
Until then I'll just hope my employer doesn't see this post.
Free speech can include verbal harassment, whereas expression is just opinion based. Though one can be stretched to include the other.
Most defenders of free speech think that speech is only free if you can't be arrested for saying something. You can be arrested for saying things ('kill yourself', leading to someone doing so) and should be.
What exactly was the lady that told the guy to kill himself charged with?
well i guess you know every defender of free speech in the world, but those i've heard from don't want to get shit on /just/ because they said something. telling someone to kill himself and that someone killing himself isn't just saying something, there's a criminal consequence to that speech, that's why the speaker becomes guilty of crime.
"verbal harassment" is a slippery slope
I know this is a foreign concept, how about people just use common sense. If its appropriate say it, if its not don't. If you get drunk and rant about something fine, that is one thing, but personally i just don't have the energy to fight with people anymore. You should know by a certain age level what is appropriate to say, to the audience you are addressing.
You can't tell someone to go kill themselves, people might actually do it. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, common sense is an uncommon virtue.
common sense is subjective
Manslaughter.
Read this
What does 'verbal harassment is a slippery slope' mean? Are you saying verbal harassment shouldn't be illegal ever, ebcause if it is then it means anyone can be arrested for saying anything? Because that's not true.
Which she should have been - there was a similar case in Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago. Basically his girlfriend said 'oh, you keep making excuses, but today is going to be the day,' including when he literally called her the day he died because he was scared because he had hooked up his car exhaust through his window (which she advised him to). That's at the very least negligent homocide.
Precisely Refusing to try her just out of some bizarre OTT defence of 'free speech' would be absurd and insulting to the victim's family.
Yes, true. However, I would wager that most of us here have a very similar understanding of what common sense is.
define verbal harassment
people in Canada are getting brought to court for "harassment" over a disagreement on twitter right now, that's the slippery slope.
nah, it's an international community, for brits it is common sense to drive on the left, for americans it is common sense to start clapping for no reason and use ass backwards measurement systems.
Although we live in different countries with different cultures and common sense might subjective sometimes, I believe most people here have the common sense to not tell someone to kill themselves.
depends on the context
if simply telling people to go kill themselves or to go die in a fire were to be illegal, we'd probably have to jail half the world.
Lmao! We really should change....
I didn't say anything about being illegal or not, I was just pointing out how it is common sense to not tell someone to go kill themselves. Half the world already said ''go kill yourself'' to someone during a fight or something, but it's still not a nice thing to say, and I believe everyone here knows that, so I consider it as common sense.
I don't think she actually commited a crime though. Not saying what she did wasn't dispicable, I personally think she should be set adrift at sea, but based on the article it didn't seem like the boy was under duress or anything. I'm guessing the prosecution will claim he wasn't mentally stable enough to make his own decisions?
There's a big difference between shouting "go kill yourself!" to someone in anger and walking someone through it while pressuring and cajoling them the whole way.
I hate your fucking measurement system.
As do I. It makes no damn sense.
pretty sure that difference can be described as "context"
but yeh, i agree
Why i hate stones. So there.