When did Free Speech disappear?

Topcat123

trigger_fish wrote: »

Free-speech depends on how much money you've got.

The newspaper can write what they like about me as I haven't the money to sue them.

If I lost I'd be totally ruined.

Almost happened to George Galloway but he beat them all.

Yes free speech for the rich and powerful only, that is how they like it!

Topcat123

onlyroz wrote: »

If there is a person in the next cubicle noisily emptying their bowels, why does their gender matter in any way?

Because public toilets are a place of sanctuary and safety, where one can talk about the opposite sex without fear of being overheard! :eek:

trigger_fish

Personally I don't like the Mrs telling me what to do.

Can't stand petticoat government!

Tabbytabitha

onlyroz wrote: »

Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is a bit like disagreeing with women having the vote. It’s legal. Get over it.

What about when capital punishment was legal - should people have just got over it?

Topcat123

Cornucopia wrote: »

We live in complicated times.

Many of our issues come from the breakdown of the traditional order in which values would be handed-down, to become a fairly insular set of related views and opinions about things which would then be reflected back through the media, social interaction, politics and the law.

Progressively, since the 1960s, we've managed to convince ourselves that a wider and wider set of views, and of lifestyles are acceptable. For those of us of a liberal view, pretty much any lifestyle is now acceptable, as long as it is consensual and does not harm others.

Views are a little trickier, since we bring in questions of taste, public decency, respect for others, etc. etc.

In that context, we don't really have free speech and never really did. You can say what you like in private, but once you include other people in the equation, there are a huge variety of legal and political issues, as well as a wealth of social conventions to contend with.

I can kind of sympathise with the "no more free speech any more" camp. That feeling comes from a dismay at the way that society has changed, compared to our own values. (And by values I don't necessarily mean a narrow set of personal views, I mean a potentially broad, public-spirited set of feelings about what would be best for society).

In a complex, multi-cultural society (by which I mean all cultures, not just those associated with faith or ethnicity), the situation is incredibly complicated. What is de rigeur at the Rugby Club Dinner could be worthy of arrest when shouted out after Prayers on your particular weekday of choice.

We've discussed MSE in this context before. I know it seems like it could be a public service that permits anyone to say anything, but it isn't. Like much of the Internet, it is a privately-owned concern, and as such if it has corporate sensibilities and sensitivities around certain topics, then that is its prerogative.

It is a public place. People should be able to say what they like.

We should have freedom of speech for all not just the elite who can afford to run a site.

It is class discrimination.

The libel laws have always been class discrimination, which is why they should be scrapped.

POPPYOSCAR

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

What about when capital punishment was legal - should people have just got over it?

That is an interesting point.

I have heard that the majority are in favour of the death penalty should it therefore be brought back?

BarryBlue

onlyroz wrote: »

Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is a bit like disagreeing with women having the vote. It’s legal. Get over it.

I do agree. I suppose there could be an argument over women voting having an effect on others, rather like those that are scared to death of 16-year-olds voting in case it helps their opponents.

There can be no similar argument about same-sex marriage though. Those that object to it are doing so even though it has not the slightest impact on their lives whatsoever. It is not compulsory, so why would such people simply deny happiness to strangers? Such narrow-minded interference makes as much sense as me wanting to ban stamp collecting!

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Anyway to be more serious, (;)) I'm quite happy with segregated toilets - go to any busy establishment - pub - shopping centre - even airports, and you'll often see long queues for the ladies (because of the slightly more elaborate process involved with so many garments) whereas the majority of men can be in and out quite happily in a matter of seconds (if you'll pardon the expression! :rotfl:)

Seriously, though, the "usual" arrangements are bit daft - there should be more facilities for ladies to help reduce queues - it is nonsense in the 21st century to have no queues for the gents and long queues for the ladies. Come on, sisters! Rise up!

I don't know what the fuss is about. What you say has reminded me that on quite a few occasions over the years I have been in a gents' toilet and a woman has barged in and used a cubicle, simply because of those queues. All those men didn't put them off. It usually happens at some busy show or event.

As for shared ones, I've just returned from Portugal and many small establishments have one toilet for everyone. The cubicle often contains both toilet and urinal, so everyone is catered for. This is common in Spain too, but I've never seen it here.

quidsinquentin

redux wrote: »

One which says on the door

Gender neutral toilet (with urinals)

... as well as one which says

Gender neutral toilet (without urinals)

I thought this was a joke when I saw it in the pub a couple of weeks ago (and it made no difference at all to who was going in either) but it might be coming soon to anywhere.

Sensibly, in future people can design new buildings with only one set of toilets, maybe with a partition or two, but some things might look a bit daft for a while

Going back years, one place I went only had a shower in the men's toilets, so the women had to organise themselves to picket it for a while in the evening.

Why is it 'sensible'?

Or alternatively, does the majority of the world (with toilets) have gender neutral or gender separate toilets?

Ames

quidsinquentin wrote: »

Why is it 'sensible'?

Or alternatively, does the majority of the world (with toilets) have gender neutral or gender separate toilets?

I suspect the main driver of gender neutral toilets is money. Less space taken up by having two or three sets of toilets means more space for stock or shops.

quidsinquentin

wymondham wrote: »

The minorities voice is now louder than the majority!

tommix wrote: »

About bleeding time!:cool:

I take it you mean only the 'select minority' voice? Or were you thinking that the BNP, KKK and other such minorities should have a loud voice?