When did Free Speech disappear?

Marisco

Wild_Rover wrote: »

????????

I don't regard the opinions of a flat Earther who is a young Earth creationist - on these topics - as being valid in the least! They may however be perfectly rational on issues like cookery and vehicle maintenance. As people, they are fine. Their opinions? Well...... not so much.

The notion that ideas and opinions should be immune from criticism is quite frightening actually. That way lies totalitarianism.

WR

That wasn't what I said, or at least that wasn't what I meant. But it does seem that if you don't take on board the attitude of "anything goes", then there is something wrong with you.

Cornucopia

pepper77 wrote: »

... sky fairies ...

It's not just about what you say, but the way that you express it.

Starting out your notional discussion of religion by applying a pejorative description to other people's deities is not a great way to win friends, influence people, or more importantly build bridges.

stephen77

grahawk wrote: »

You mean old fashioned stuff like women should stay in the kitchen and raise children which is a view some people still hold. Or do have something else in mind. Is it one of the many elephants that you can't say here? This still sounds like some sort of perception based on political views.

If a women wants to be a domestic goddess and marries a man who wants a domestic goddess.

What is the issue?

You use the term "old fashioned" like its a bad thing.

thegirlsmum

pepper77 wrote: »

I'd last 5 minutes.

I once had a complaint lodged against someone who had been teasing me. My view was that i was quite capable of giving him a slap if needed and wasn't offended in any way. but because my colleague was offended on mybehalf he was disciplined. he had said that if i had been 20 years younger and 5 stone lighter he would have propositioned me. Now I knew him well enough to know that there had not been any malice and i gave as good as i got.

i just felt unhappy that someone was offended on my behalf, not even on their own behalf!

stephen77

Moby wrote: »

.....Perhaps what you claim as free speech is experienced by others as a challenge to their rights or offensive to their values and we now live in a very diverse society so awareness and a sensitivity about such things is being polite and thoughtful? For instance one of my colleagues at work is a practising moslem who wears the hjab. Every time there is a terrorist attack she experiences abuse from ignorant knuckleheads....so I'm hardly going to talk about terrorism in front of her am I....to do so would be simply oppressive?
Similarly many of the people I work with are immigrants....I'm hardly going to go on about immigration to them am I!

By not talking about it on purpose is saying she is a part of it!
Its not like terrorists attacks are not on the news or papers.

I have talked about immigration to immigrants. They agree they did not move here for the sunny weather on a November evening!

I am sure people in the 1980's spoke about terrorism when an Irish person was around.

seven-day-weekend

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I would imagine that gender neutral toilets are remarkably common, it's just that they are not usually referred to in that way.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, every house or flat I have ever owned or visited had gender neutral toilets, and nobody else in the properties batted an eyelid.

I think I saw a video clip (Bill Maher?) where he ridiculed politicians who opposed their introduction yet presumably used them every day in their own homes.

WR

Usually this is a single-person facility. There will be not be a stranger of the opposite gender loudly emptying their bowels with just a thin partition between you.

seven-day-weekend

BarryBlue wrote: »

It is a complete fallacy that there is 'free speech' in this country, and I'm sure there never has been for various reasons. It does always seem to be the claim of DM-reading sorts that they want to be able to spout whatever bile they like!

We do not have the freedom to go round saying things that are a breach of public order or discrimination legislation, for instance. This has been the case over many years, although obviously the laws do get adapted to reflect modern attitudes. For instance, it is illegal to abuse someone on the basis of sexuality, yet less than 50 years ago it was commonplace and almost expected in some quarters.

I find it laughable that it is being suggested that there should be some sort of protection from criticism for religions. The church has been responsible for restricting free speech throughout history, through such things as blasphemy laws which are obviously victimless. It's a bit rich that they are happy to revile non-believers, yet get upset when their belief is laughed at. In some religions the intolerance still extends to killing people who don't 'believe'. I just think the world would be a much better place without it.

It is fair enough not insulting individual people because of what belief they happen to subscribe to, but the beliefs themselves are certainly open to criticism, and that is an important distinction. I happen to think that virgin birth, resurrection and lots of their other claims are just daft, so why should I not be able to say so. The same applies whichever religion is concerned.

I do not object to that.

evenasus

evenasus wrote: »

Person A agrees/is in favour of same sex marriage
Person B disagrees/is not in favour of same sex marriage.

If both were intolerant of each others views, it would make them both bigots?

onlyroz wrote: »

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

I didn't say 'I' was for or against same sex marriage.

The point I was making was about who could be called a bigot. According to the definition, it would be people on both sides of an argument.

seven-day-weekend

pepper77 wrote: »

Why not?
Why should an immigrant not be capable of discussing important issues, why should a christian/muslim/hindu not be capable of discussing sky fairies?
I can assure you there are plenty of immigrants not in favour of further immigration. Still, you wouldnt know 'cos you dont discuss such things with immigrants.

And I, as a practising Christian, am quite happy to discuss religion, or God, or whatever you wish, as long as it is polite and I am not personally insulted or called names. (Ands I'd prefer you did not refer to God as a sky-fairy whilst talking to me as it is impolite to do so, but if you insist on doing so I will still debate with you. If you wish to use the phrase any other time, then you are at liberty to do so).

pepper77_2

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not just about what you say, but the way that you express it.

Starting out your notional discussion of religion by applying a pejorative description to other people's deities is not a great way to win friends, influence people, or more importantly build bridges.

Really?

Knew there must be a reason.

No wonder that RC got all steamy when I suggested it seemed a great deal - see the priest, a few heil Marys and start again with a clean sheet.