Freedom of speech anyone?

[ReptilianPeon]

Right, I come from a Jewish background and I would fully defend the freedom of speech of holocaust deniers. Whether or not they are allowed to speak on the subject publicly doesn't do anything to change their point of view. These people still exist and in fact allowing them to speak publicly is a good way of identifying who the racists and holocaust deniers and Islamic radicals even are.

That's actually a good point and I hadn't considered that. My concern is that if we allow such views then it could mean that vulnerable people are exploited or find such narratives attractive. I'd hate for people to suffere as a result of such views. I would also hate it if a previously decent person was sucked into a cult because they haven't been equipped with the tools that they need and/or don't know any better.

So long as I'm not being forced to hear things I don't want to hear or do things I don't want to do then that's fine I suppose. And yes, I'd to see people exposed. I'm reluctant to a complete u-turn on my previous post though - for reasons I mentioned above.

[Regina]

Right, I come from a Jewish background and I would fully defend the freedom of speech of holocaust deniers. Whether or not they are allowed to speak on the subject publicly doesn't do anything to change their point of view. These people still exist and in fact allowing them to speak publicly is a good way of identifying who the racists and holocaust deniers and Islamic radicals even are. If we force them to be in the closet it becomes that much harder. Also it gives a good platform for rational people with far better arguments to counter the absurdity and violence of Islamic idiocy. Banning speech just seems insecure and provides an alluring taboo for young people. They think 'Why would the government not want me to hear this?' Then when they listen to it privately rather than publicly they don't get the counter point of view. Where as in this video you have the host who can act shocked and call the guy an idiot.

This is such a good point, and puts how I feel into better words than I could probably word it.

"Freedom of speech" opens up the option for discussion. If used properly (meaning that everyone gets free speech) it always means people can come back with criticism when they hear things they don't agree with. It promotes debate, where "this is offensive, don't say it" just serves to keep the status quo going, which in this case is keeping religion privileged.

Where we can draw the line on free speech is when it comes to threatening language or incitement, but I think that goes without saying.

[Minimalist]

I don't understand why that's such a hard concept for people to grasp.

It's something to do with hats.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Neil, Portillo and Johnson did a great job of exposing him for the fundie that he is.

Cage always has been a lunatic fringe group that presents fundamentalist beliefs through the veneer of respectability of operating with well known charities (eg amnesty). In reality they're simply a front for extremist organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir, and now everyone knows it.

Shame Ammesty et al didn't do their research when they got into bed with them.

[Regina]

I don't understand why that's such a hard concept for people to grasp.

It's something to do with hats.

It's for when Richard Dawkins comes in for the snatch

[Nope]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31771463

I just found this article. Apparently, Cage is having trouble getting funding now. Good.

[CapnAwesome]

This is such a good point, and puts how I feel into better words than I could probably word it.

"Freedom of speech" opens up the option for discussion. If used properly (meaning that everyone gets free speech) it always means people can come back with criticism when they hear things they don't agree with. It promotes debate, where "this is offensive, don't say it" just serves to keep the status quo going, which in this case is keeping religion privileged.

Where we can draw the line on free speech is when it comes to threatening language or incitement, but I think that goes without saying.

Thanks! I kind of wonder how I've been so coherent on Atheist forums today. I've sort of been having a stressful day.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...women.html

I'm all for free speech but this tests my position.

It mirrors Biblical doctrine. Middle Eastern ethnocentric religious beliefs are dangerous to one's physical, mental, and emotional health.

[robvalue]

I was really surprised when I found out holocaust denial was "off limits". I think that's dumb and arbitrary. Why single out that one atrocity from all of history?

I agree that free speech gives people a free pass to make absolute fools of themselves and their beliefs, and that's a really good thing.

Of course free speech does not mean no consequences, and it doesn't mean it's OK to harass people or incite violence.

[CapnAwesome]

I was really surprised when I found out holocaust denial was "off limits". I think that's dumb and arbitrary. Why single out that one atrocity from all of history?

I agree that free speech gives people a free pass to make absolute fools of themselves and their beliefs, and that's a really good thing.

Of course free speech does not mean no consequences, and it doesn't mean it's OK to harass people or incite violence.

Well I'm not sure if holocaust denial is off limits in all European countries. Certainly it is in Germany. I think Europe has a lot of collective guilt over the holocaust. It is odd, esspecially considering that the whole of the Turkish government pretty much denies the Armenian Genocide or large parts of Russia still deny the Holodomor. Also equally amazing is the ignorance of these events in the west.