Freedom of Speech: Is there a standard

Should there be a standard to what extent people can express an opinion?

 

Just a simple question? What standard would you like to introduce? American, German, English or maybe New Zealand?

 

I think people should always be able to speak their mind. It makes a huge part of our freedom....
However, there are certain subjects in every society, which are tabus- such as our involvement in the Iraq War, which are hardly ever discussed in public. And if you express your unhappiness about it, people soon turn away. Hard to deal with national shame, so it seems.
The Europeans to my knowledge can talk about their shortcomings a bit more openly, at least in that respect. I met Germans, who didn't have any problem to talk about WW2 and to accept responsibility.

 

You cannot have free and then put restrictions on it. that makes no sense.

 

Absolutely, I believe it is a huge part of being a free society. I do however have concerns when information is conveyed that is blatantly incorrect. I'm not soley suggesting along the lines of political but across all facets of society. As you state, there are some things that are taboo but depends on what group of people you are talking to. Everyone had an opinion about Azaria Chamberlain and openly expressed this. The media again played a huge role in peoples thinking, therefore the overwhelming negative sentiment. How destructive this must have been on the pysche of a seemingly innocent people.

 

I firmly believe that the media should be answerable to an ethics commission much the same as the medical.

 

This is the very realm of make or break in societies perception. We rely too much on easy information to a degree, which is understandable, therefore somebody has to be responsible!

 

I think we have shifted from a democracy to corporatism.

Its what is deemed as acceptable by the corporates that dictates free speech these days.

 

I believe the industry itself should be responsible for fair unbiased information. This will never happen as long as big business control the financial side of it. I am indirectly involved in this industry and it stinks of corruption, even from the outside where I sit.

Journos have become lazy and sensationalists. It is easier to chop a conversation up to get the outcome they are looking for than to actually contrive questions to get to the heart of issues. Good news sells no stories.

Most people do not question. It is a small few who do, and don't automatically accept what the see, hear, or read. Look at this forum as a microcosm of society in general. It is generally the same members posting all the time, and as a whole that is very few in percentage of population. Dumb alluded to it in a post on another thread. He said how much we all learn by investigating differing views.......questioning.

Aussies don't question........just follow popular concensus.

 

Well said slippery totally agree.

 

I agree to an extent. A huge issue is lack of political content in school curriculum, expecially from a mass media point of view. There will always be strong disputes, such as what is demonstrated with the carbon debate, which really isn't a cut and dried argument, as much as we would like it to be therefore the ongoing conjecture. But at least people will be able to balance and decipher information more appriately.

 

With all that is said. Is there a certain standard to which free speech should be harnessed, or do we still consider that there should be an open slather at any cost to society approach, despite bein complete factual?

 

There is definitely a problem with the education system and teaching people to critically analyze information. Education system isn't keeping up with the digital information revolution.

Frankly I think education should spend a lot less time analyzing fiction, and a lot more time analyzing the real world.

There is plenty of good news sources out there, there's plenty of really great political commentators, from all sides of politics. A lot of people just prefer to listen to sensationalist rubbish, and that's not the media's fault.

Say what you like about the ABC, at least they have Media Watch (which picks up ABC bs too) and actually own up to their mistakes publicly during their news programs.

There's all sorts of restrictions on "free speech". Advertising restrictions, defamation, fraud, etc. I think basically whenever speech directly results in harm to others, such as damaging their reputation with lies (causing them to lose their job say) or lying about a product you're selling (effectively theft), inciting violence, etc, there should be consequences. But being offended obviously isn't enough. But even say, extreme verbal bullying resulting in suicide, there should be punishment for that.

 

First we have to analyse the word FREE and if it is appropriate to use in the context we are using it in.

I think the word free has become extinct in the world today. I don't think anything is free anymore, so we should stop using it. Could be our first extinct word !

We should now be saying ....... Speech and thoughts with restrictions, and slight allowances.

Just to be politically correct.

 

I disagree Slippery...............it would simply be a case of saying to a group of kids: Look those lollies are free, but please consider others as well. Free speech should be considered in the same light....it's free but don't abuse it to the detriment of others.

 

Again it can't truly be free in the sense of the word if there are stipulations.

It is then an oxymoron.

 

"Freedom" refers to a philosophical concept that may not exist in reality, just like "nothing". Freedom of speech/expression is part of the declaration of human rights, presumably that is what people are referring to when they use it.

 

So philosophically we have freedom of speech, but in reality there are boundaries.

Now I am not saying the boundaries are not warranted, but I feel we need to drop the word free and replace it with ' the right ' of speech. Thereupon everyone has the right to speak their thoughts but must be mindful of the consequences to others.

The word free is not an accurate term for what we are talking about.

 

No... Freedom is a philosophical concept. That doesn't mean that we have it, or that it is even possible to have it.

Think most people understand that free speech is not an absolute.

 

Now that' a point! We were brainstorming and didn't know it. I think you could play on words forever and not come up with an appropriate term. "you have the right to say whatever you like, but whatever you do say can be used in a court of law!......hmmmmm, not sure about that actually!

 

Freedom as a concept refers to the absence of physical coercion. You are free if, in essence, other men leave you alone. Political freedom is the primary concept being discussed here so it refers to the government leaving you alone. Freedom of speech would then mean that the government does not interfere with those who speak or write. Keeping in mind that all men have a fundamental right to their own life and any other rights are derivative (all rights flow from that right to life), the right to say what you want derives from the right to live. The debate is centered around the wish to suppress undesirable or destructive speech but is there such a thing? Can speech by one man violate another man's rights? It would be on that basis that any restrictions are warranted.

 

Gee you spring some mind twisters on us Ziggy!

 

This is right on the money. Well put.

 

No, Google the philosophy of freedom.

I know what Freedom of Speech means.

All men do not have a "fundamental right to their own life".

What is this supposed to mean: "the right to say what you want derives from the right to live"?

Obviously you have to be alive to say anything (anything new anyway).

Yes, speech can be "undesirable or destructive", that's why are there are laws against fraud, perjury, defamation, false advertising, inciting violence, noise curfews, harassment, etc.

 

Ziggy the point is in the last two questions.

What is desirable to one person may not be desireable to another. Does that make what that person said a violation of the other persons rights ?