Freedom of Speech Redux – Idiot Alert 2

Charlotte Gore comments on the recent prosecution of Emdadur Choudhury. I agree absolutely with her stance. Free speech means the freedom to insult and offend. What is interesting are the usual apologies in the comments for censorship and, presumably with it, sanctions against free expression. The particularly idiotic ViddywellMyDROOGS is a case in point. Throughout the discussion, despite it being pointed out –  time and time again –  this pompous poltroon fails to understand that freedom of speech does, indeed, mean that you may cause offence and that there is no right not to be offended and there is no right to respect. Even the fallen who fell in part to defend that right. Yes, their sacrifice does mean that people may insult them, too. That’s what freedom of speech actually means.

Some examples from this goon:

It does Not mean the right to be offensive or vile or cause offence or insult or cause public disorder

Apart from the public disorder bit –  which is already a criminal offence – it means precisely that.

why this fallacy that free speech = the right to act like a spoilt monster ..is encouraged or accepted is beyond reason
those who say Free speech = offensive actions ..have insulted those who died for free speech

Because –  and I’ll type this really, really slowly for the hard of thinking –  it’s not a fallacy. That is what it means to have freedom of speech. It means we allow those we find repugnant to air their views in public, no matter how vile or insulting, because their freedom of speech is our freedom of speech. It really is a simple concept, however ViddywellMyDROOGS is too simple to comprehend it.

Another piece of idiocy:

You’re a hundred percent right. One ought to be able to protest, even if it causes grave offence,
…………….
I see …so theres no taboo in your Fairy tale land of fluffy clouds?

No fluffy clouds just an understanding of what free speech means. It includes the right to cause grave offence. There being no right not to be offended.

And again:

I’m assuming that poppy he immolated was his own to do with as he pleased.
……………………

yes true
If he burnt it in private in back yard thats fine

However by burning it in public at a PUBLIC Rememberance day service ..he made that stance and crossed the line…if you throw rocks at people dont expect a bunch of flowers or best wishes cards
It was a Day of Rememberance of those who died for Freedom …not a platform for personal political gestures
Its called Tolerance and respect
50 quid?
id have given him 6 months

Er, as pointed out later, if you want to make a political statement  and that is in part what exercising free speech is all about, then this would be an ideal opportunity. There is no right to respect and there is no right to be free from offence. I don’t know how many times folk have to point it out to this cretin, but it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. He’s so dense he could instigate time travel.

Oh, there’s more where that cack came from:

For s start getting fined for burning a few poppies is ridiculous. Freedom of speech
……………….
In Public in front of an assembled mass of peacable people gathered in respect for the dead
Its akin to gate crashing a wedding in achurch with a strippergram

Its nowt do with Free speech at all ….its narrow minded disresectfull tantrum bigotry

It doesn’t matter whether it is disrespectful, a tantrum or bigotry. This man has the right to exercise free speech. And we have the right to call him on it. That’s how this free speech thing works.

When the above was pointed out to ViddywellMyDROOGS his response was “you have no respect end of”. Typical of the retort one would expect from someone who has clearly lost the argument and very clearly does not understand what constitutes free speech. Unfortunately, this malaise is all too common. Weasel words like offence and respect are trotted out to justify the suppression of verboten thought and dissenting voices. Sure, Choudhury is a nasty bigoted cunt, but he is a British citizen exercising his right to show the world what a nasty bigoted cunt he is.

Also in this discussion –  sooner or later someone trots it out –  the fire in a crowded room canard is raised. I’ve nailed this one before, but I’ll reiterate as it repeats like garlic bread and needs to be rebutted regularly.

Ooooh Gawd, pleeease! I really do wish I had a quid for every time someone regurgitated this idiotic cack. Of course we have the freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded room. There may be a fire, after all. Secondly, people do not do so if there is not a fire because to do so would be stupid. And, if someone did, the owner of the premises would quite rightly eject them and not allow them back in. They could, should they so wish, sue the pants off the offender for damages. All of which brings me to the primary reason that this allegory is unadulterated claptrap; personal restraint is not the same thing as the state deciding what may or may not be said. It is a non sequitur.

The fire in a crowded room canard is claptrap. It always was claptrap, it always will be claptrap and repeating it ad nauseum as if it is some sort of trump card when freedom of speech is discussed does not diminish its claptrappiness – quite the opposite; it makes you look as foolish and ill-informed as the half-wits who trot out the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” line every time ID cards are discussed.

So, can we not do the fire in a crowded room argument, please? It didn’t wash its face the first time it was uttered it, still doesn’t and it never will.

A final thought from our CiF twat:

Of course people like yourself and Choudhury who believe freedom of speech means it is compulsory to offend just come across as complete plonkers.
………………
Brilliant

Id buy you adrink for that

The comment he is praising is a straw man –  no one said anything about compulsory offence. Given this, I’m reminded of an old Chinese proverb; it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. There’s a lesson there for both Emdadur Choudhury and ViddywellMyDROOGS but I doubt either has the wit to notice.

————————————————

Oh, yeah, before some bright spark tries to tell me –  again –  that the laws of libel and slander are restrictions on free speech, I repeat; they are not free speech issues. They are actionable torts under common law as they are actual harm caused; whereas opinions and insults are not. Free speech is about the state decreeing what we may not say for fear of criminal sanction. Good. Glad we cleared that up.