"Free Speech" in England?

[alexa]

For anyone who missed this: Philadelphia writer silenced by CAIR.

I have been reinstated on Examiner.com today. … As a precaution (and of my own free will, not suggested to be [sic] by anyone), I’ve taken down my CAIR articles … and will no longer focus on any further stories about Islam or CAIR. I guess that’s the end game [sic] of terrorism: scaring people into [not] speaking out and keeping people away from seeking out their livelihood.

Pajamas Media » CAIR

I don't know much about Cair but the block on 'free speech' you narrate appears more a block on spreading hate and hearsay. In that way it appears to be the sort of thing which is always subject to being silenced - by libel suits or whatever. Free Speech is often contravened by other rights.

When you get to the link I provided however you are dealing with lack of free speech on an academic level.

In an open letter to David held, John Keane, regarding Held justifying his academic relationship with Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf, that that education

‘was always conditional on him resolving the dilemma that he faced in a progressive and democratic direction’

responsed

Students should not be told what to think; rules of political correctness should not be applied to them. When that happens, it is condescending, dismissive of their intelligence, corrupting of university life. And isn’t it inconsistent with the spirit and letter of your principles of democratic autonomy?

Libya, intellectuals and democracy: an open letter to Professor David Held | John Keane

We try to limit free speech in relation to intellectual thought and we move on to lose all the freedoms we have worked so hard for.

Big difference between allowing freedom of thought and speech and allowing hate speech and unproven hearsay.

 

[tigerbob]

For anyone who missed this: Philadelphia writer silenced by CAIR.

I have been reinstated on Examiner.com today. … As a precaution (and of my own free will, not suggested to be [sic] by anyone), I’ve taken down my CAIR articles … and will no longer focus on any further stories about Islam or CAIR. I guess that’s the end game [sic] of terrorism: scaring people into [not] speaking out and keeping people away from seeking out their livelihood.

Pajamas Media » CAIR

I don't know much about Cair but the block on 'free speech' you narrate appears more a block on spreading hate and hearsay. In that way it appears to be the sort of thing which is always subject to being silenced - by libel suits or whatever. Free Speech is often contravened by other rights.

When you get to the link I provided however you are dealing with lack of free speech on an academic level.

In an open letter to David held, John Keane, regarding Held justifying his academic relationship with Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf, that that education

‘was always conditional on him resolving the dilemma that he faced in a progressive and democratic direction’

responsed

Students should not be told what to think; rules of political correctness should not be applied to them. When that happens, it is condescending, dismissive of their intelligence, corrupting of university life. And isn’t it inconsistent with the spirit and letter of your principles of democratic autonomy?

Libya, intellectuals and democracy: an open letter to Professor David Held | John Keane

We try to limit free speech in relation to intellectual thought and we move on to lose all the freedoms we have worked so hard for.

Big difference between allowing freedom of thought and speech and allowing hate speech and unproven hearsay.

I agree, but the concern has to be where the line is drawn between the two.

If the law is "reason free from passion" then one would anticipate that such a line would be straight. In reality we know that it is not so, and probably never will be.

 

[alexa]

For anyone who missed this: Philadelphia writer silenced by CAIR.



Pajamas Media » CAIR

I don't know much about Cair but the block on 'free speech' you narrate appears more a block on spreading hate and hearsay. In that way it appears to be the sort of thing which is always subject to being silenced - by libel suits or whatever. Free Speech is often contravened by other rights.

When you get to the link I provided however you are dealing with lack of free speech on an academic level.

In an open letter to David held, John Keane, regarding Held justifying his academic relationship with Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf, that that education

responsed

Students should not be told what to think; rules of political correctness should not be applied to them. When that happens, it is condescending, dismissive of their intelligence, corrupting of university life. And isn’t it inconsistent with the spirit and letter of your principles of democratic autonomy?

Libya, intellectuals and democracy: an open letter to Professor David Held | John Keane

We try to limit free speech in relation to intellectual thought and we move on to lose all the freedoms we have worked so hard for.

Big difference between allowing freedom of thought and speech and allowing hate speech and unproven hearsay.

I agree, but the concern has to be where the line is drawn between the two.

I thought I had illustrated that. You cannot tell someone what to think Just like Davide Held was wrong to believe he should influence Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf's thinking.

He appears to have been doing the same thing as is being tried on US academic life. This is the very basis of free speech. To give it up is to give up the entire right to free thought and speech. It is a commitment to oppression, to blindly follow propaganda.

Now having studied and come to one's thoughts, how one deals with them is the next thing. This can either be through the accepted norms and laws of the land or not. The Cair thing as with the OP came in conflict with the laws of the land.

Generally people can get away with expressing their own feelings concerning something. The problems comes about when they start trying to say things which there is no foundation for. This is necessary to protect us all from anyone spreading any kind of libel about us.

In the OP for example Mel P imo, not hers, spoke in a generalised racist way. This is nothing to do with her thoughts on the situation. It is something more. She allowed the intensity of her prejudice against Arabs and Palestinians to write stuff which was stereotyping them in a hostile way. She was initially investigated for incitement to hate but nothing has come of it.

In the illustration I gave there is a desire to stop academics from discussing legal ways to secure Palestinians rights and freedom. That is the definitive in censorship of speech and must be resisted. If such censorship is allowed we completely give up our right to freedom of speech and thought.

Obviously there are people who believe it is right that they should enjoy the right to say anything they want about anyone, to abuse minorities and spread hate and incitement to their hearts delight and on that I agree there is a problem on where we draw the line.

On Academic freedom there is no line to draw. We either have it or we give up all rights to freedom of thought and speech. That is what it appears you are facing in the US.

If the law is "reason free from passion" then one would anticipate that such a line would be straight. In reality we know that it is not so, and probably never will be.

No problem with passion. Without passionate people we would half dead and lack creativity. Again the issue is how one uses one's passion

 

[tigerbob]

I don't know much about Cair but the block on 'free speech' you narrate appears more a block on spreading hate and hearsay. In that way it appears to be the sort of thing which is always subject to being silenced - by libel suits or whatever. Free Speech is often contravened by other rights.

When you get to the link I provided however you are dealing with lack of free speech on an academic level.

In an open letter to David held, John Keane, regarding Held justifying his academic relationship with Gadaffi's son, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf, that that education

responsed

Libya, intellectuals and democracy: an open letter to Professor David Held | John Keane

We try to limit free speech in relation to intellectual thought and we move on to lose all the freedoms we have worked so hard for.

Big difference between allowing freedom of thought and speech and allowing hate speech and unproven hearsay.

I agree, but the concern has to be where the line is drawn between the two.

I thought I had illustrated that. You cannot tell someone what to think Just like Davide Held was wrong to believe he should influence Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf's thinking.

He appears to have been doing the same thing as is being tried on US academic life. This is the very basis of free speech. To give it up is to give up the entire right to free thought and speech. It is a commitment to oppression, to blindly follow propaganda.

Now having studied and come to one's thoughts, how one deals with them is the next thing. This can either be through the accepted norms and laws of the land or not. The Cair thing as with the OP came in conflict with the laws of the land.

Generally people can get away with expressing their own feelings concerning something. The problems comes about when they start trying to say things which there is no foundation for. This is necessary to protect us all from anyone spreading any kind of libel about us.

In the OP for example Mel P imo, not hers, spoke in a generalised racist way. This is nothing to do with her thoughts on the situation. It is something more. She allowed the intensity of her prejudice against Arabs and Palestinians to write stuff which was stereotyping them in a hostile way. She was initially investigated for incitement to hate but nothing has come of it.

In the illustration I gave there is a desire to stop academics from discussing legal ways to secure Palestinians rights and freedom. That is the definitive in censorship of speech and must be resisted. If such censorship is allowed we completely give up our right to freedom of speech and thought.

Obviously there are people who believe it is right that they should enjoy the right to say anything they want about anyone, to abuse minorities and spread hate and incitement to their hearts delight and on that I agree there is a problem on where we draw the line.

On Academic freedom there is no line to draw. We either have it or we give up all rights to freedom of thought and speech. That is what it appears you are facing in the US.

If the law is "reason free from passion" then one would anticipate that such a line would be straight. In reality we know that it is not so, and probably never will be.

No problem with passion. Without passionate people we would half dead and lack creativity. Again the issue is how one uses one's passion

Yes, I followed your illustration and agree with it.

Being an Englishman living in the US, I naturally have a somewhat less pre-programmed reaction than my neighbors to people being held to account for utterances that may or may not fall under the umbrella of free speech.

The US does not have the libel laws that have shaped my views on what does and does not constitute reasonable behavior. For me, there is a significant difference between purely intellectual criticism and deliberately malicious criticism. I'm not sure that view is shared by many of my current countrymen. The feeling here seems to be that you should be allowed to say what you like, where or when you like, about whomsoever you like, whether or not you know it to be true or false.

There are many things about the US that I struggle to understand. Someone told me the other day that they believed that nobody should be prohibited from buying any kind of weapon anywhere, or from carrying it under any circumstances (or words to that effect). I was also told that anything less than this was unconstitutional.

The constitution is a tough one for me to get my head around sometimes.

 

[alexa]

I agree, but the concern has to be where the line is drawn between the two.

I thought I had illustrated that. You cannot tell someone what to think Just like Davide Held was wrong to believe he should influence Saif al-Islam al-Gaddaf's thinking.

He appears to have been doing the same thing as is being tried on US academic life. This is the very basis of free speech. To give it up is to give up the entire right to free thought and speech. It is a commitment to oppression, to blindly follow propaganda.

Now having studied and come to one's thoughts, how one deals with them is the next thing. This can either be through the accepted norms and laws of the land or not. The Cair thing as with the OP came in conflict with the laws of the land.

Generally people can get away with expressing their own feelings concerning something. The problems comes about when they start trying to say things which there is no foundation for. This is necessary to protect us all from anyone spreading any kind of libel about us.

In the OP for example Mel P imo, not hers, spoke in a generalised racist way. This is nothing to do with her thoughts on the situation. It is something more. She allowed the intensity of her prejudice against Arabs and Palestinians to write stuff which was stereotyping them in a hostile way. She was initially investigated for incitement to hate but nothing has come of it.

In the illustration I gave there is a desire to stop academics from discussing legal ways to secure Palestinians rights and freedom. That is the definitive in censorship of speech and must be resisted. If such censorship is allowed we completely give up our right to freedom of speech and thought.

Obviously there are people who believe it is right that they should enjoy the right to say anything they want about anyone, to abuse minorities and spread hate and incitement to their hearts delight and on that I agree there is a problem on where we draw the line.

On Academic freedom there is no line to draw. We either have it or we give up all rights to freedom of thought and speech. That is what it appears you are facing in the US.

If the law is "reason free from passion" then one would anticipate that such a line would be straight. In reality we know that it is not so, and probably never will be.

No problem with passion. Without passionate people we would half dead and lack creativity. Again the issue is how one uses one's passion

Yes, I followed your illustration and agree with it.

Being an Englishman living in the US, I naturally have a somewhat less pre-programmed reaction than my neighbors to people being held to account for utterances that may or may not fall under the umbrella of free speech.

The US does not have the libel laws that have shaped my views on what does and does not constitute reasonable behavior. For me, there is a significant difference between purely intellectual criticism and deliberately malicious criticism. I'm not sure that view is shared by many of my current countrymen. The feeling here seems to be that you should be allowed to say what you like, where or when you like, about whomsoever you like, whether or not you know it to be true or false.

There are many things about the US that I struggle to understand. Someone told me the other day that they believed that nobody should be prohibited from buying any kind of weapon anywhere, or from carrying it under any circumstances (or words to that effect). I was also told that anything less than this was unconstitutional.

The constitution is a tough one for me to get my head around sometimes.

No libel laws are you sure? I was trying to find out how Cair had 'stopped freedom of speech' and I found this

In a letter to a senior staffer at the Examiner, CAIR-PA charged Proctor with “hate speech,” “bigotry,” and “slander” and issued a strongly worded request for the writer’s dismissal.

Pajamas Media » CAIR

I am assuming then that in the US because of freedom of speech being a part of the Constitution (which I don't even know) people find other ways to deal with problems. Just a guess but it seems that the ways used are defamation of character and loss of job opportunities.

Again just thinking but in this way I think the US deals with 'rights' less well than we do because the most influential and rich will be able to be the most powerful.

Now money is necessary here for libel and slander to. You do not get legal aid for these so unless you or your Union have the money you will not be able to sue but the actual court case does manage as best possible to get to the truth rather than a situation which there seems to be in the US where those with the most money and resources can get their way.

In that way I would say there is a very definite possibility that freedom of speech taken to the extremes has the potential itself to interfere with freedom of speech which would then go on to interfere with freedom of thought.

Very interesting. Thank you for getting me thinking.

The gov on our hatred laws (in this case talking about religious hatred)

Religious hate crime : Directgov - Young people