Free speech and freely

I don't agree with your sentiment Baggs.

All very well having free speech for everyone from a philosophical point of view, but the likes of neo-Nazis and fundamentalist hate preachers don't just speak or write ..... they spread hate, discontent and incite violence.

I don't defend the right for people to say what they like if what they're saying is deliberately aimed at creating mayhem and fear.

And people, the majority, who are not spreading hate and inciting violence, spread (or should spread) their antitheses.

Nothing wrong with voicing discontent, especially if it's discontent about societal wrongs.

We either support free speech or we do not,

Just heard Brendan Cox (Jo's widower) on the radio so am reminded of her killer, Mair.

Mair was associated with neo-Nazi groups - such groups in the UK tend to be popular amongst the white working class and ill-educated. I never read their literature but would be surprised if there's any intelligent voicing of discontent about societal wrongs, e.g. government policies, social immobility etc., more likely it's all about foreigners, Moslems, and until recently how the EU took the Great out of GB.

Here's Liberty's take on it

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest/speech-offences

I'm glad to see that they approve making incitement to violence a criminal offence. I agree that we should have free speech; I find this 'safe spaces' move quite dangerous in that it appears to approve curtailing free speech. But incitement to violence takes freedom of speech to a completely different, inhuman. level.

I think your last comment is probably exactly right, river, and, even if you didn't perhaps intend it to, it chimes well with what I said earlier about the majority and vast bulk of what is said and written about anything at all. Nasty views are best countered with normal non-nasty views. Censoring them doesn't counter them at all, nor does it stop them being thought and voiced.

I thought incitement to violence was already a crime which is fine by me. Simply expressing hate for or dislike of something (including groups of people), however horrid to hear, is not direct incitement to violence.

e.g. Suppose I said "People in yellow T-shirts get up my nose". Incitement to violence? Nope.

But if I said: "Thump people in yellow T-shirts!" that would be.

Exactly right Baggs and who would wish to curtail freedom of speech, it would be very illiberal, anything which incites violence is already a crime as you say.

Here's another way to look at it, by Ali A Rizvi: without hate speech there's no religious freedom cos the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran would all have to be banned for containing it.

Makes things difficult when hate speech is legitimised by being part of your religion's sacred writings...

Here's another nine symbols for you to recognise, and make sure you allow those using them to say what they want.

www.indy100.com/article/symbols-white-supremacy-swastika-virginia-confederate-statue-violence-7902946