Freedom of Speech

[Wee Toon Ajax]

What I support is freedom of speech - particularly when it comes to criticisms of the Monarchy. At what point does genuine criticism - become treason.

Ionn

In the light of events last night at Oxford University what are your views on allowing people like David Irving and Nick Griffith freedom of speech.

I, personally, think it is better to allow these clowns the chance to talk as firstly it shows the public just how abhorrent they and their views are.

Have to say that considering the whole debate was about freedom of speech in the first place, I don't think that the anti fascist protestors have done their own cause any good at all.

[ionnsaigh]

Couldn't agree more

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Free speech, as long as what people say doesn't inflame, or incite people to riot.

[Wee Toon Ajax]

Free speech, as long as what people say doesn't inflame, or incite people to riot.

Bobby,

really cant agree with that at all - it is not free speech if you impose any sort of limitations.

The two people in question are a Holocaust denier and the leader of the far right party in the UK, by denying them free speech then it only drives them underground where in my opinion they become even more dangerous, they feel that they are being outlawed and not listened to therefore attracting every nut job under the sun. This has happened in the US I am sure with a few of the Religious and far right nut jobs already.

By allowing them right to free speech then they can be far easily discredited publicly for being the clowns that they are.

LOL I mean everytime I hear Wendy Alexander, Nichol Steven, Gordon Brown, David Cameron or George Bush it inflames me and definitely makes me want to riot, well makes me want to puke at least but I wouldnt deny them the right to talk

[Sweltered]

By giving them a platform, you give them credibility, if these people were so easy to dismiss with intellectual debate, and the holding them up to public ridicule, why do they still exist? Why didn't they disappeared ages ago?

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (another holocaust denier) spoke at Columbia University recently, he was condemed from the floor before he spoke, which made a mockery of the whole proceedings. It was reported repeatedly that he said that Iran had "no homosexuals". Unfortunately that's not what he said, some Persian speaking friends told me he actually said the Iran did not have the same problems with homosexuals, referring to same sex marriage etc. While this guy is obviously a complete loon, by giving him the platform, and then misquoting him, his credibility was increased.

These people are already operating underground, by inviting them to Oxford Union, they got a much wider audience, it has only encouraged them..

[Wee Toon Ajax]

By giving them a platform, you give them credibility, if these people were so easy to dismiss with intellectual debate, and the holding them up to public ridicule, why do they still exist? Why didn't they disappeared ages ago?

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (another holocaust denier) spoke at Columbia University recently, he was condemed from the floor before he spoke, which made a mockery of the whole proceedings. It was reported repeatedly that he said that Iran had "no homosexuals". Unfortunately that's not what he said, some Persian speaking friends told me he actually said the Iran did not have the same problems with homosexuals, referring to same sex marriage etc. While this guy is obviously a complete loon, by giving him the platform, and then misquoting him, his credibility was increased.

These people are already operating underground, by inviting them to Oxford Union, they got a much wider audience, it has only encouraged them..

At the end of the day these people always are going to exist - racism, denial of holocaust etc is not going to disappear simply by denying them the right to talk freely about it. An example of this is the former East Germany where no free speech was allowed especially about the Nazis`apart from how bad it was - all that was allowed was to say how great Communism and the State was etc and this led to a huge Neo Nazi movement amongst disenfranchised youth in the former DDR, which still has ramifications in the re-united Germany to this day where far right parties are making huge gains in local elections. By denying any talk about the Nazi era the youth in large numbers were taken in by Neo Nazi groups who gave them a sense of belonging to something.

Talking specifically about last night the BNP will gain far more for the meeting having to be abandoned by the actions of the anti-fascist protestors than if Griffith and Irving were allowed to go ahead and give their speeches about freedom of speech. They will milk last night for every penny it was worth whereas if they were allowed to give their talks I am sure nobody next week would remember they were actually at Oxford Uni last night.

Re the misquoting at Columbia University the problem here i think is that the press in the so called free world have become very lazy and it is happening more and more where misquotes are becoming "fact" - sad really.

[Sweltered]

NOT suggesting they should be gagged, just not given an international platform. I

t's like those wastes of space Amy Whinehouse and Pete Docherty...why are these people given awards when their drug fueled antics are plastered over the media, I'm sick of both of them, and I heve never even heard any of their stuff.

[Wee Toon Ajax]

Oxford Uni Debating Society knew exactly what they were doing inviting them both along on the same evening but it has backfired spectacularly and the only winners out of this are Griffith and Irving.

Mate, for one of the so called top education institutions no common sense was used whatsoever. If either had been invited to talk on their own nobody would have bothered but the two together was always going to be news. Oxford Uni are twats



re drug fuelled antics, neither have probably taken 1/2 the drugs that the greatest rock stars in the 70s took but problem is that living in a "celebrity' obsessed media world they actually think people are interested - 2 lightweights if you ask me.

[ionnsaigh]

Wee Toon Ajax

Where I agree with your general synopsis - I feel your attack on the failings of the former DDR, are to a degree mainly unsubstantiated. Whereas freedom of speech was curtailed in East Germany- your contention that this led to a huge Neo Nazi movement - requires further investigation.
I contend that the rise of far right organisations was a direct result of the fall of Communism in DDR. Their is compelling evidence to suggest that total transformation to an open market economy - led to high unemployment poverty - and all the ugly baggage that goes with it. Chiefly the rupture of social cohesion - people where left to fend for themselves. Incidences of crime -organised gangsterism flourished - beggars in the street -prostitution - homelessness - all found home in the former Socialist Republic. The advance of Fascism in Greater Germany and Europe in general - has at it's core - deep feelings of discontentment - amongst the poor and the dispossessed.
Poverty and ignorance are a powerful combination .
It would seem that both you and I - share a common abhorrence to right wing propaganda - the latest antics of the so called misguided left - have given a massive shot in the political arm - for groups such as the BNP - by the very people - who object to their existence.
I mean what road - would they rather go down - ban this ban that - afraid to criticise Mohammed society - you might offend someone - was never - viable reason to curtail freedom of speech.
The established churches - Politicians - Newspaper magnates - the ruling elite , would ultimately use this as a blanket ban on what is afteral- a Human Right.
Am for just going out and assassinating this scum of the Earth. The only fruitful method would be to improve the living conditions of people - a large number who turn - to the Right Wing - when certain conditions arise.

[Wee Toon Ajax]

Wee Toon Ajax

Where I agree with your general synopsis - I feel your attack on the failings of the former DDR, are to a degree mainly unsubstantiated. Whereas freedom of speech was curtailed in East Germany- your contention that this led to a huge Neo Nazi movement - requires further investigation.
I contend that the rise of far right organisations was a direct result of the fall of Communism in DDR. Their is compelling evidence to suggest that total transformation to an open market economy - led to high unemployment poverty - and all the ugly baggage that goes with it. Chiefly the rupture of social cohesion - people where left to fend for themselves. Incidences of crime -organised gangsterism flourished - beggars in the street -prostitution - homelessness - all found home in the former Socialist Republic. The advance of Fascism in Greater Germany and Europe in general - has at it's core - deep feelings of discontentment - amongst the poor and the dispossessed.
Poverty and ignorance are a powerful combination .
It would seem that both you and I - share a common abhorrence to right wing propaganda - the latest antics of the so called misguided left - have given a massive shot in the political arm - for groups such as the BNP - by the very people - who object to their existence.
I mean what road - would they rather go down - ban this ban that - afraid to criticise Mohammed society - you might offend someone - was never - viable reason to curtail freedom of speech.
The established churches - Politicians - Newspaper magnates - the ruling elite , would ultimately use this as a blanket ban on what is afteral- a Human Right.
Am for just going out and assassinating this scum of the Earth. The only fruitful method would be to improve the living conditions of people - a large number who turn - to the Right Wing - when certain conditions arise.

Ionn

There was a large Neo Nazi movement in the former DDR well before the fall of the Communist state. A good source for material about this is a book called "Fuhrer Ex - The memoirs of a former Neo-Nazi" by Ingo Hasselbach. This book details from street level what was happening with the disillusioned youth in Berlin well before the fall of the Wall and the Communist State and how a large number of them were attracted to movments such as neo-nazi groups. A far better read rather than so called academic look at the movement which is inevitably bollox.

There is no doubt that the economic conditions which prevailed after reunification in the former DDR areas led to a further rise in the neo-nazi movement but this movement was already there and flourishing in the former DDR. The neo-nazi movment did not just spring up after reunification or the fall of communism. The fall of communism gave the neo-nazi movment that already existed there a far bigger boost than they could have ever dreamt of.

Having worked in and visited many of the former Soviet States I have witnessed much of what you are talking about the gangster culture, prostitution, drug smuggling, racism etc at first hand and what is actually interesting is that those who control these operations usually were members of the Soviet Military or high ranking Communist officials, they have been by far the biggest beneficiaries of the fall of Communism.

[Malky]

I think this deserves a thread of it's own so I've split it from the Diana/Dodi thread.

Malky

[king of kilcousland]

t's like those wastes of space Amy Whinehouse and Pete Docherty...why are these people given awards when their drug fueled antics are plastered over the media, I'm sick of both of them, and I heve never even heard any of their stuff.

I know this isnt the main point of the thread, but just had to say that, although i cant stand either winehouse or docherty(although i did like the libertines), to say they shouldn't recieve any awards or praise for their music becuase of their drug taking is ridiculous. Sgt peppers is constantly refered to as one of the greatest albums ever made, and was clearly written while completey off their heads on all sorts. likewise "legends" of the music industry, ozzy, keith richards, kurt kubain, etc etc, were all bigger druggies than winehouse or docherty could ever hope to be!

[£3.73]

I'd be surprised if either Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse etc etc have anything like the substance addiction problem's that are reported.

In this day and age, EVERYTHING is stage managed. For every Beatles there is a Rolling Stones, for every Blur there is an Oasis, and for every Simon Cowell type representing a squeaky clean act, there is a Simon Cowell type representing a bad boy/girl type.

Any publicity, positive or negative, is good publicity, and artists profiles are built up to gross charicatures of reality ! A bit like WWF !!! Most of these reports are carefully placed press releases. imho.

The sad thing is that, it's more often than not camoflage for an otherwise mediocre talent.

[general jack o'niell]

the oxford union did wot they did knowing it would get publicity, those two are entitled to freedom of speech, does not mean that a body like OU should give them a platform for it, they want contraversial? i'd soon give them a few home truths to think about.

as for the pete and amy show, mediocre at best talent wise and so what if their respective substance abuse is not as bad as we are led to believe, they are both guilty of it, i think several courts have shown this to be the case. they glamourise it, and its the age that buys their dross that will pay the price.

could be worse, you could be a taxi driver with a car smelling of vomit

[Sweltered]

perception is reality. Why Docherty is still walking the streets is a joke. Oh and how many times were any of the Beatles or Stones arrested for posession? Not the every-other-week it seems that Docherty is.

Giving them awards adds to their noteriety...Whinehouse would never have the coverage she gets, if she didn't touch drugs. I'm not suggesting all musicians should be angels, but is it really necessary for them to behave like this in public. There are far more successful musicians out there that are never arrested, who spend half their life wasted.

PS Sgt Pepper sucked