Free Speech Deemed Contentious.

[Theland]

Our tradition of free speech is threatened by a growing trend find within it reasons to be offended where no offence was ever intended.
Such offence is manufactured, and validated by a subjective redefinition of meaning.
Surely this trend has its roots in post modernism and relativism, where any word or phrase can be deemed to be offensive when no offence was ever intended.
Will this idea ever be challenged successfully to reinstate the value and protection of free speech as it has always be understood?

[Spicerack]

Ah, right.

[TonyV]

Theland not going to read all the responses, but IMHO you need to have a a good look at yourself, your views are half baked.

[sevenOP]

"//One thing I think is important (as with libel or slander laws) is that if something is provably true... then it cannot be seen as an insult. //

That no longer applies."

Certainly worrying even though a one-off , legalistically esoteric abuse of some Austrian blasphemy Law.

An Austrian women was found guilty in Austria under Austrian blasphemy laws. ( 'she claimed that Muhammad, the most important prophet of Islam, was not a perfect human because he “liked to do it with children” and that his marriage to the six years old Aisha amounted to pedophilia.') The case had begun in the fall 2009 and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its decision in the case on 25 October 2018. The woman was fined 480 euros.

The complicit European Court of Human Rights had to perform their perverse legalistic gymnastics to support their fellow Austrian Criminal Court toadies.

Possibly hate started it and hate found out about it; but these Blasphemy Laws ( and other Laws 'on the books' ) urgently need reviewing and repealing where possible and not just waiting to be pulled out of the hat when it suits certain agendas .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/truth-or-dare/

[naomi24]

There is no excuse. This wasn’t the Austrian Courts - it was the ECHR. You asked for proof. You got it. I rest my case.

[sevenOP]

naomi = "There is no excuse."

No excuse for what?

[naomi24]

The ECHR ruling. The ECHR is defined as an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. In this instance it failed and it failed purposefully, rendering it unjust and untrustworthy. Utterly shameful.

[sevenOP]

Shameful Naomi? YES certainly.

This was an European Court of Human Rights ruling on a SPECIFIC case *in the Austrian Criminal Court*.

I condemn it as unequivocally as I condemn this one in a British court,

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1694824-4.html#answer-12310258

... though the British court ruling may be far more palatable to some.

Both could set dangerous precedents.

[naomi24]

In my opinion, the ECHR has in this case rendered itself unfit for purpose, unlike the British court which has, quite rightly, upheld the principle of free speech.

[sevenOP]

The Legal gymnastics in one case are fine then, but not the other ?

[naomi24]

Any legal gymnastics came from the ECHR - and it cheated. No gold medal there.

[sevenOP]

Just to clarify Naomi, I am not, not, criticizing nor referring to Harry Miller's right to free speech, I am specifically referring to the Legal gymnastics of the English Courts in rejecting Harry Miller challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected.

[naomi24]

But Harry Miller was told by the police that he had not committed a crime so the Court’s ruling was just. No?

[sevenOP]

Full deflection Naomi?

" I am specifically referring to the Legal gymnastics of the English Courts in rejecting Harry Miller challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected."

[naomi24]

I read what you said the first time and I responded. No deflection.

[sevenOP]

"Just to clarify Naomi, I am not, not, criticizing nor referring to Harry Miller's right to free speech, I am specifically referring to the Legal gymnastics of the English Courts in rejecting Harry Miller challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected."

" I am specifically referring to the Legal gymnastics of the English Courts in rejecting Harry Miller challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected."

Naomi reply = "But Harry Miller was told by the police that he had not committed a crime so the Court’s ruling was just. No?"

"SevenOP, //Is giving a straight answer a problem Naomi ?//

Never - you should know that by now."

Except when you don't.

[naomi24]

SevenOP, I’ve given you a straight answer. It’s clearly not what you want to hear but it’s a straight answer nonetheless.

And speaking of straight answers, why haven’t you answered my question?

//Harry Miller was told by the police that he had not committed a crime so the Court’s ruling was just. No?"//

[sevenOP]

//Harry Miller was told by the police that he had not committed a crime so the Court’s ruling was just. No?"//

Harry Miller was never charged with a crime.... "He was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident". BBC


" I am specifically referring to the Legal gymnastics of the English Courts in rejecting Harry Miller challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected."

That, is the Legal Gymnastics I am referring to.( which you may be unaware of ?)

Free Speech *is* Contentious Theland, eh ?
Conflation, non sequiturs, deflection, misdirection, evasion, misattribution, free speech has it all.

[Theland]

Your point is?

[Mozz71]

If it wasn't for free speech, Donald Trump wouldn't be president, because all the crap he speaks would be fact checked and proven to be lies. All the time he cries "Fake news!" would be analysed and proven (when appropriate) to not be as fake as he claims. Basically, he wouldn't be allowed to spew such bullcrap.

Yeah, it seems free speech is a little.overrated.

[Peter Pedant]

// Example - Doctor sacked by his health authority for refusing to call a man a woman.//

very very bad example - sorry that is not too contentious innit?

a doctor does not have free speech in a lot of things relating to patients - such as discussing details with other people etc etc
and I really dont have much difficulty in recognising the lawfulness of being instructed by the health authority employer - as calling Mrs X - miss or a dalek or mister - just as I cant call her a silly old bat.