KMB, nice one! (re your latest post)

ARJAY,

Voltaire's famous statement is as relevant in the 21st century as it was in 1694.

FOXY,

People hate. That is a fact of life. Haters are not deterred by laws restricting free speech. They will continue to spread their vitriol in private and gatherings and in the guise of religious teaching. Especially the latter!

All restrictions on free speech will achieve is deter the rest of us from expressing our opinions freely and openly. Once that happens, once we are cowed into silence, dictatorship follows.

On the whole I am encouraged by the robust defence of free speech on this thread. The usual pro-censorship group have followed their usual tactics. CJ MORGAN, who boasts of his dedication to reason on other threads, contents himself with two emotional outbursts. In the first he labels us "haters." In the second he announces that he is "comfortable" with the decision to restrict Toben.

Guess what CJ MORGAN, laws about speech should not be dictated by what makes you, or me, or the Pope, comfortable.

Typically CJ MORGAN refuses to engage with the issues.

KMB sums his posts up succinctly and accurately.

EXAMINATOR, another member of the pro-censorship group, projects his obsession with Zionist propaganda onto this thread as he does on many others. He seems to see a Zionist under every bed.

EXAMINATOR too refuses to engage with the issues. He writes:

"I agree with CJ you just want to curb any criticism of all things Jewish (Israeli)."

In fairness to CJ MORGAN I don’t think he accused me of trying to curb "criticism of all things Jewish."

Perhaps EXAMINATOR will show where I have written anything that could be construed as a desire to shut down criticism of anything Jewish or Israeli.

But, to repeat, I am encouraged by the robust defence of free speech I see on this thread. It reflects what I find in face-to-face conversation.

Let's face it people, nothing in this world is FREE, and freedom of speech has a price too, that of being offended by others.
I get offended by our Political Masters and their pronouncements at times, should I be able to sue/silence them? Hardly. They've declared themselves immune after all.
I may think Toben and his ilk are fools, but I accord them the same right I claim for myself, freedom to say what they want. If we start adding riders to that freedom, other than covering criminal or violent incitement, then we are no longer free, are we?
The day we can silence someone for "offending" others sensibilities we are doomed, and on our way to Theocracy, a fate worse than death!

Long live the fringe-dwellers, the nutters, the crazies, they are a sign of the health of our society!

Well said MAXIMILLION

How many people have sighted the legislation proclaiming that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to insult? Does such legislation really exist?

I've been following this thread but not contributing to it - as I guess many do.

The reason I often don't contribute is because I figure that, once one has seen or put forward one's arguments on similar threads its already out there. If people aren't convinced the first two or three or dozen times then once more is not going to do the trick.

For instance: the so-called Voltaire quote.(The original poster on this thread correctly said it was "attributed" to him). Each time its dragged out I used to point out (and so, I think, have others) that Voltaire did not, at any time, say this. It was a phrase used by one of his biographers over a hundred years after his death. Yet the same people who have been on posts where this is pointed out, rather than going and checking for themselves if they don't believe this, continue rather to ignore it.

So, when people say this thing about Freedom of Speech has been done to death, or re-hashed, they don't mean particularly this particular aspect of it (Hoben), but the entire premise.

It seems to me that people are going to continue to argue this topic simply because they are arguing from two different viewpoints.

One interprets Freedom of Speech as licence to - as someone said - vent their frustrations. This they regard as healthy, progressive and cathartic.

The other regards its as freedom to express their political, social, religious opinions. This, they feel, has nothing to do with directing comment at another's private attributes - or percieved lack of them.

The first group does not differentiate between personal abuse and rejection of a personal viewpoint.

The second group sees them as two seperate issues.

Until both groups can see why the statements "I hate you" and "I hate your views" are interpreted differently by each group I think the entire issue of Freedom of Speech is destined to continue being rehashed ad infinitum.

Thank you Romany. Makes me really happy when I can read a post and understand it plus I think I learnt something.

Now I am going to embaress myself.

As a young teenager I thought Free Speech meant a person had a right to make a speech.

And could only retain this right if it was a long speech. And also everyone in attendance had to understand and agreed with their point of view at the end of it.

The more clapping the more right they had to have more free speech.

It seemed perfectly logical and I think I even now return to this concept at times.