Freedom of speech - Should it be absolute or restricted

[Midwest]

Hah Ha, hoisted with your own petard

Come on Mr Skelton, you can't have your cake and eat it. I do despair on this forum, that people pick and choose their replies.

 

[D Skelton]

Come on Mr Skelton, you can't have your cake and eat it. I do despair on this forum, that people pick and choose their replies.

You've lost me mate???

 

[Midwest]

You've lost me mate???

You questioned westward10 response to your debate about free speech. Perhaps its now time for you to give us your opinions?

 

[hightower]

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Freedom of speech, should not be regulated or restricted.
Freedom to broadcast views or ideology should be.

 

[D Skelton]

You questioned westward10 response to your debate about free speech. Perhaps its now time for you to give us your opinions?

I just wondered why he wanted this topic closing down? Am I missing something here?

 

[D Skelton]

My view on the matter is simple. I believe the freedom to speak should be absolute. No restrictions whatsoever. No exceptions.

As important as the freedom to speak is the freedom to hear. Deprive one of the freedom to speak, you deprive all of the freedom to hear.

As John Stuart Mill once said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.

 

[Midwest]

Haha, thank you, I'm sure you lot have coped without me though. To be honest, busy working, travelling and writing. I hover, and sometimes I even reply, but nine times out of ten I'll delete my reply before posting haha.
QUOTE]

What are you writing about?

 

[Midwest]

Damn postings; what are you writing about?

 

[D Skelton]

Damn postings; what are you writing about?

I was replying to what Murdoch said about my input being missed and his question about where I'd been.

 

[Marvo]

There's always a point where freedom of speech for one person is going to infringe on the human rights of others so, as with most things, there's got to be a balance that's struck.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I don't see why freedom of speech for one person should infringe on anyone's human rights?

 

[PEG]

We are limiting this circular question,to humans,are we not?

Well,then you can do neither of the two options,in the post's question.

Freedom of speech,can not be stifled,regulated or upheld,with anything other than custom,rules,laws and force.

So,at any one time,it can only be hoped,that a "consensus" of agreed opinion,within a group or order,holds a level of what is,or is not,acceptable. In short,there is no black,or white,there is only a shifting change of grey,lightened and darkened,by current events,fashion,and shifting opinions.

....And what has this got to do,with taking money for fitting a pond light?

Remember lads,you can lead a horse to water,but you can't force-feed a camel,maltesers.