Liverpool FC Forum

[Sabre]

This youtube video is about a scientist slagging the media for irresponsability about health issues.

Video

The thing is that by default, being a believer of democracy you tend to defend freedom of speech in the media.

But how can you make compatible freedom of speech and what is being told in the media not being harmful to society?

In the example of the video, they talk about a radio program saying vaccines are bad, which may be a health problem for many children.

How can this kind of irresponsability be combatted? with fines?

Is freedom of speech, with no constraints at all a good thing? with no exceptions? (imagine fascist ideologies).

Views appreciated.


P.S. I know the scientist is funny, but he has a point

[Big Niall]

i believe 100 per cent in freedom of speach. some muslim guy recently objected to that dutch anti muslim guy  speaking freely. but if your religion is to week to use logic to defend your argument,  then your argument is .

this new law about outlawing certain humour is wrong. I am not a muslim  so muhammid is not the prrophet muhammid to me, like wise jesus christ superstar by jerry springer, or even life of brian are great.

if you're argument cannot defend your views, your  views have no logic.

question everything or you are a muppet.

[Big Niall]

my sister is religous and she read the bible to her children. apparantly the pain women go through in childbirth is punishment for eve eating that apple.


also, alowing your daughters to be sodomised by strangers ( the words sodom and gomorah come from somewhere)

also- cathollics(I don't know about protestants0 believe that if a man says certain words over a glass of wine, it turns into the blood of somebody that lived 2000 years ago and then he drinks it, there is absolutely no evidence behind this. I challenge one person here to defend this belief.

[Sabre]

also- cathollics(I don't know about protestants0 believe that if a man says certain words over a glass of wine, it turns into the blood of somebody that lived 2000 years ago and then he drinks it, there is absolutely no evidence behind this. I challenge one person here to defend this belief.

It's all a matter of drinking the wine from the cup enough times. At the 7th drink, you shall believe.

To be honest I agree the gist about too much political correctness in some topics, I find it annoying too.

But, in the case of the video, I think that woman in the radio is being very irresponsible, she's not allowing all views to be discussed, rather, she'll dismiss other views with cheap demagogy.

When demagogy is used for trivial things I don't find it a problem, but when it's about children receiving vacciones or not, it's not. That concerns me.

[Big Niall]

the problem with religion is that where i grew up, irish = catholics, and british = protestant.

to be honest the protestant faith made more sense to me (see blood = wine mathametical nonsense) but I could never become a protestant (might  as well say i love cromwell) and to take it a step further the muslim belief that jesus (who i believe existed) was just a man, makes me a muslim.

how much booze do muslims drink on paddies day?

[account deleted by request]

There have to be restrictions on freedom of speech. Is it ok that someone sits in the stands at Anfield and shouts fire for no reason, causing injury, panic and chaos ? Is it ok to refer to people/classify people by derogatory terms such as N-----.

I do think that things like the denial of the Holocaust , should be allowed as a question but not as a statement. I somehow find it more acceptable to question things than to give definative statments. Should we vaccinate children is more acceptable to me, than someone saying we shouldn't vaccinate children.

Was it ok for the sun /people to say what they did about Liverpool fans, without evidence and without thought or consideration for the feelings of others.

No, in my opinion there are things that should be open and discussed, there are other things that should be heavily censored or with heavy penalties.

I think it also depends on where and when you say things.

I don't believe in God but I would neither force my view on others or make a point of visiting the Pope and telling him just why there is no god.

Like all things a little common sense goes a long way in deciding on freedom of speech, but there will always be grey areas open for debate. Things change over time, views unacceptable today will become acceptable tomorrow, which again leads to more grey areas and further challenges.

[Big Niall]

in my huble view (WHICH IS always right) even a holocaust denyier shoul be able to say his stuff, and then people who have evidence of the holocaust can easliy counteract it.

if evidence is on your side, what do you have to fear?

I hate what the bnp say, but to deny them the right to say so is wrong. let everybody say their bit.

[account deleted by request]

in my huble view (WHICH IS always right) even a holocaust denyier shoul be able to say his stuff, and then people who have evidence of the holocaust can easliy counteract it.

if evidence is on your side, what do you have to fear?

I hate what the bnp say, but to deny them the right to say so is wrong. let everybody say their bit.

The problem is when and where you say it. If you say it in front of an audience of neo-nazi's there is little chance of anyone standing up and saying ..... "hang on a minute I think I have some evidence here that proves you wrong".

[Big Niall]

yeah, but if I , like the bishop dude the pope promoted recently, said there were not any jews gassed. then anybody that studied the atrocity, would  say here is our evidence.

you cannot ban a view, if your view is superior, it will win.

freedom, freedom, freedom

[JoeTerp]

in the specific case that Sabre brought up, yes it might be dangerous to society in this case, but it certainly should be allowed.

One of the famous examples that S@int brought up is yelling fire in a movie theatre (although he changed it to the kop   ) and its generally accepted that this is not allowed because you are directly threatening the safety of people and the result of your words could be the equivalent of letting of a flash bang grenade in a movie theatre, which I am sure is illegal.

Personal verbal abuse also is unnacceptable however it is difficult to determine damages in this case, but if they can be proven I have no problem with civil suits.

But I believe that people have the right to deny the holocaust if they so wish to do so as well as evolution and to make generally racist remarks. Quite easy to defend freedom as long as nothing controversial is being said.

Christopher Hitchens Speech on the matter

Part 2

part 3

[LegBarnes]

Yes freedom of speech is funny thing in ideal world its good but in some cases can be bad.

IE. for the bad , people like extreme muslim groups can talk about violence to english people in the uk. Not right really.

But then agian if we stoped it all together there would be no way to speak out vrs the goverment and then we would leave our selfs open to corrupt goverments.

So its about ballance really But if you look at usa atm and how things are swinging towards a police state atm its worring times I don't think alot of us in 15 years will be worring about free speach since we will hardly be able to speak our minds in public ever agian unless we act soon. 

[Judge]

there must be a differentiation in freedom of speech and freedom of expression

freedom is ok unless it interferes with others civil liberty

[dawson99]

Freedom of speech has to be allowed, but then again...

An extremist can chant saying he wants soldiers to die (whilst collecting his benefits of course) but as soon as draw a funny Mohammed picture, they start killing people!!!

Is that right?

What about that family that go to soldiers funerals to laugh and point with there banners, is that right?

we have to be careful to find the line between freedom of speech and race/hate attacks that can escalate to full blown riots.

I personally agree with freedom of speech, but... its complicated.

[JoeTerp]

its not a question of right and wrong. Because who could possibly be responsible for drawing the line?

There is nothing illegal about chanting that you want your own soldiers to die, and I don't see how that relates at all to collecting benefits.

[GYBS]

that family and their actions in the states cannot be defended in any way