GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

January said:
Going against the grain here - I am in favour of hate speech laws and limits on what can be posted on social media

We all want cyber bullying stopped- that means curtailing freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
The best way to stop cyber bullying is to stop giving children unsupervised access to the cyber world of the Internet. We already have laws against giving our children alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Perhaps we should add smart phones to the list.
 

Irishdude said:
There is a huge difference between hate speech and a comment to the effect that you don't think Sharia law should be imposed on the UK.

For example, I find the "call to prayer" noxious and don't think it should be broadcast five times per day. A Muslim might feel the same way about church bells. We should both be allowed to express our opinions.
Click to expand...


of course and I never said otherwise. I don't want any religions laws imposed on my country - christian, muslim, anyone.

but I do still stand by my view that I do not want unlimited freedom of speech - I am in agreement with there being limits - aka hate speech laws.
All freedoms are balanced against the freedoms and rights of others - this is no exception.
 
TabbyAnn said:
The best way to stop cyber bullying is to stop giving children unsupervised access to the cyber world of the Internet. We already have laws against giving our children alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Perhaps we should add smart phones to the list.
Click to expand...


not realistic for teenagers to not have access to internet and smart phones.

the best way to stop cyber bullying is to have penalties for doing so - aka limits on free speech
 

January said:
aka limits on free speech
Click to expand...
Seems to me that would be a very slippery slope, wouldn't it? That old "give an inch" thing... something is limited this week, then what's next? What else will suddenly become taboo? Limiting freedoms comes with a price that could backfire horribly.

For some reason, the Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People (Reichstag Fire Decree) from 1933 is coming to mind. Little by little, freedoms were taken away... freedoms of speech, press, assembly. One by one. Scary stuff.
 
CallMeKate said:
Seems to me that would be a very slippery slope, wouldn't it? That old "give an inch" thing... something is limited this week, then what's next? What else will suddenly become taboo? Limiting freedoms comes with a price that could backfire horribly.
Click to expand...


No I don't think so.

Is no different to any other freedoms - all freedoms are balanced against the freedoms and rights of others. this is no exception

eg I don't have the right to drive when over the alcohol limit - and having such law isnt a slippery slope or give an inch to stopping other driving.
 
The question is who gets to say who is allowed to say what.

Set the politics aside because in the end who is the censor and what or who's criteria are they using. Political types come and go but the laws and policies frequently stick around.
 
it isnt political here in Australia - hate speech laws are clearly defined.

and who gets to decide them - the same who and process that decides any other laws
 
January said:
Going against the grain here - I am in favour of hate speech laws and limits on what can be posted on social media

We all want cyber bullying stopped- that means curtailing freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

"Hate speech" has no stable definition. Whoever controls the definition controls the censorship. And history shows us that once the door is open, every faction tries to weaponize it against its opponents. So if your solution to online cruelty is "let the authorities decide which opinions are allowed," then you haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just traded one danger for a far greater one.
 
January said:
of course and I never said otherwise. I don't want any religions laws imposed on my country - christian, muslim, anyone.

but I do still stand by my view that I do not want unlimited freedom of speech - I am in agreement with there being limits - aka hate speech laws.
All freedoms are balanced against the freedoms and rights of others - this is no exception.
Click to expand...
In the UK, "the authorities" seemed to have defined any criticism of Islam or of Islamic immigrants as "hate speech." People are getting arrested for what seem like fairly innocuous social media posts. I haven't heard of any Islamic people being arrested for such posts. Those in the UK, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
In the United States:

"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from 'abridging the freedom of speech' but does not define what that freedom entails. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Clause to greatly circumscribe government regulation of 'protected' speech (including some forms of expressive conduct) while giving the government greater leeway to regulate a handful of limited categories that the Court has deemed largely 'unprotected.' "

The above is from this link, which further categorizes protected and unprotected speech.
 
Interesting topic. Free speech.
Who has the right say what they want,........ when they want to?
Who can stop them?
Who has the right to speak, and who doesn't.
Who determines what is right and acceptable? Think about it................Those who determine what you should hear control you in a sense.
Don't like what your hearing. Turn it off, walk away.
What the hell is "protected speech"
The 1st Amendment simply means you can say what you want. It does not define what is acceptable or unacceptable. Do you want the Gov to determine what you can listen to or not listen to? You determine what you want to listen to. You determine what not to listen to. You!
This is the beauty of our constitution. It puts the power of discerning and choosing in our hands. You think if some else decides what you can hear or not hear you would feel safer or better protected?
I don't like 75% of what I hear. I think that social media and current news has elevated the 2% wackos to real sources of real issues.
The truth is that they are nothing. Flash in the pan, here today gone tomorrow. But their 15 minutes of fame gives all the news websites something to put on the front page. Sensationalism sells. It grabs people's attention but it is not, in anyway related to the vast majority of people who wake up everyday, go to work, take care of their family and hope that they can improve their life going forward. These people think for themselves and that is why the constitution works.
 
Antoli said:
"Hate speech" has no stable definition. Whoever controls the definition controls the censorship. And history shows us that once the door is open, every faction tries to weaponize it against its opponents. So if your solution to online cruelty is "let the authorities decide which opinions are allowed," then you haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just traded one danger for a far greater one.
Click to expand...

.I disagree. It does have a legal definition and it has not been weaponized by any factions here.
 
January said:
.I disagree. It does have a legal definition and it has not been weaponized by any factions here.
Click to expand...

Once a society accepts the principle that speech is allowed only at the discretion of whoever holds power, the rest is a matter of timing. So if you think Australia is magically immune to the history of how these laws expand, I’d love to know what part of human nature you think has suddenly evolved. Because your argument essentially boils down to: "It hasn’t been abused here yet, so it’s safe." That’s not reassurance, that’s complacency.

Laws don’t stay frozen in the moment you personally encountered them. They expand, drift, and get reinterpreted as soon as political incentives change. And the fact that you personally haven’t seen it abused in Australia doesn’t mean it can’t be or won’t be. That’s not evidence of safety; that’s just a lack of understanding about how power shifts.
 
Antoli said:
Slander is more of a civil offense in the United State than a criminal offense. For example, I could express derogatory opinions about Simple Simon and there would most likely be nothing he could do about it. However, if I falsely claimed Simple Simon was a bank robber he could sue me for defamation of character.
Click to expand...
:) Okay, substitute fraud. Or conspiracy.
 
January said:
not realistic for teenagers to not have access to internet and smart phones.
Click to expand...
It's not realistic to send children off with unsupervised smart phones when their brains are not developed enough to cope with it. There are plenty of opportunities for children to have supervised access to the Internet including a computer in your living room or classroom. I grew up with teenagers who didn't have smart phones and they learned math and science and became the engineers who sell smart phones to parents who want big tech and big government to baby sit for them.
 
January said:
No I don't think so.

Is no different to any other freedoms - all freedoms are balanced against the freedoms and rights of others. this is no exception

eg I don't have the right to drive when over the alcohol limit - and having such law isnt a slippery slope or give an inch to stopping other driving.
Click to expand...

Freedom to live your life as you see fit & committing a criminal offense are two different things. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Everyone has the right to live their life in freedom & the minute you want to balance one of those freedoms against the freedom/rights of others, neither will have freedom.

Freedoms include the right to speech, to thoughts/opinions, to live, to worship, to work, to equality, to the pursuit of happiness & you can go on.

If anyone thinks that slippery slope can't happen, look at what's happening in Nigeria right now.
 
Antoli said:
Slander is more of a civil offense in the United State than a criminal offense. For example, I could express derogatory opinions about Simple Simon and there would most likely be nothing he could do about it. However, if I falsely claimed Simple Simon was a bank robber he could sue me for defamation of character.
Click to expand...
And since courts have the power to decide whether or not someone's speech has caused actual damage or harm to another, and the power to impose reasonable consequences and/or compensation, laws governing speech are completely unnecessary.


As far as I know, there is no fee for filing that type of complaint with a court.
 
It’s a shame really. Americans used to think of the British as being a cut above American civilization. Their culture was mor sophisticated, more classy, more upright. Now, between the profanity and crudeness of of many British TV shows, the falsifications and hysterics of their news media, and the general loss of the culture of sophistication, they no longer seem that great. Certainly not any better than we supposedly shallow, crude, unsophisticated Americans.
 
Brookswood said:
It’s a shame really. Americans used to think of the British as being a cut above American civilization. Their culture was mor sophisticated, more classy, more upright. Now, between the profanity and crudeness of of many British TV shows, the falsifications and hysterics of their news media, and the general loss of the culture of sophistication, they no longer seem that great. Certainly not any better than we supposedly shallow, crude, unsophisticated Americans.
Click to expand...
I think it all went south when they started showing Benny Hill reruns here...
 
TabbyAnn said:
It's not realistic to send children off with unsupervised smart phones when their brains are not developed enough to cope with it. There are plenty of opportunities for children to have supervised access to the Internet including a computer in your living room or classroom. I grew up with teenagers who didn't have smart phones and they learned math and science and became the engineers who sell smart phones to parents who want big tech and big government to baby sit for them.
Click to expand...
Spot on...!

In some schools here..not enough... phones are taken from children as they walk through the door in the morning, and returned to them at the end of the day..
 
Cell phone have been a big topic here in reference to kids having them during school. Some schools in Ohio bought Yondr bags that has a lock where students are required to put their phone in at the start of school & can't take them out until after.

A new law in Ohio will go into effect this January. This excerpt is from the Ohio Dept. of Education website (https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Student-Supports/School-Wellness/Cell-Phones-in-Ohio-Schools):

Ohio law requires each school district, community school, and STEM school to adopt a policy prohibiting cell phone use by students during the instructional day by Jan. 1, 2026. An “instructional day” is any period of time in which a student is expected to be in attendance and includes not only formal instruction time but also supervised activities, such as transitioning between classes, recess, meal periods, and field trips.

Also on the ODE website, they also listed specific purposes where a student may be allowed access during school hours as follows:

Students may need access to their cell phones for educational or medical reasons. The law allows students to use their devices for specific purposes related to:
If a student has a written statement from a doctor requiring the use of a cell phone to monitor a health concern, the district or school must allow the student to use a cell phone for that purpose.

This map is probably already out of date even though it's from July of 2025, but it gives you an idea each state has done:
Map shows US states with school phone bans

red: statewide ban/restriction during school hours
pink: pilot/grant programs to limit phone usage in schools
orange: guideline on phone usage
canvas.png
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top