Freedom of certain speech

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by Technocratic_Turbine, Oct 12, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I understand the thinking behind the legislation such as the one against incitement to cause racial hatred. Target those who promote terrorism and those who induct/recruit others into terrorism. However, if you have a society which believes in the right to express any sentiment or idea. How can you censor one thing and yet permit other things. I think if a society/democracy believes in freedom of speech then it must be allowed in its purest and most absolute form. Rather than such a right be 'managed' by legislation which deems certain words or terms to be unacceptable. Furthermore, while the words "nigger", "pakki" and others like it are repugnant. Should we not be free to use them? They certainly should not be censored anywhere and we shouldn't be so sensitive to them. Since for me, if we react in a certain way towards key terms then it only reinforces the power or effect of those terms. In addition, I imagine it's rather condescending to the recipients of such words who want to be treated equally as everyone else without others being sensitive around them.

    I remember the furore over the use of "nigger" in one of the Big Brother shows, perhaps 2008? I found it hugely uncomfortable to watch and rather patronising for people of afro-caribbean lineage. It seemed everyone had to emphatically apologise for it and stress sentiments along the lines of "it can never be used", "it is unacceptable" or "we as a society should move beyond such terms". All the reaction to it seemed a little forced and I must say very childish. If we come across such words then you openly challenge them. You don't censor them. You argue by criticising why such terms are anachronisms and not pander to a certain segment of society who do not need to be treated differently than the rest.

    What do you think?
  2. I think you're talking a load of boll0cks.
  3. Why do you think so?
  4. I didnt see the epidsode but didnt it show the clips later where the black girl said she could nigger?
  5. Here's the incident in question to which I referred:


    It was in 2007.
  6. Well, it's this sentence that bothers me most: "I think if a society/democracy believes in freedom of speech then it must be allowed in its purest and most absolute form".

    I'm assuming that under this system I can exercise my right to walk up the street, shout MONG!! at retards, express my lust for 13yr old German boys at the top of my voice to whoever happens to be passing and, using my freedom of speech in its "purest and most absolute form", call for the bombing of all evil Infidel service personnel.

    Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. It has to, otherwise it undermines itself.

    Edited to add: if the best example you can find for a debate about freedom of speech is an episode of Big Brother, I despair.
  7. Isn't your last sentence there a contradiction? Surely freedom of speech means exactly that, total freedom to express whatever thought one wishes to express. For it then can be openly rebuked and demolished in a civilised debate or through civil discourse without such entities as the media trying to whip up a frenzy about it. If we have to curtail certain terms or ideas then we do not have freedom of speech and instead have a form of censorship. I try to believe in absolutes where I can and my frame of thinking is that one either embraces a 'concept' fully if you will or not at all. There should be no middle-ground.

    In fact I began with reference to the anti-terror legislation which prohibts "incitement to cause racial hatred". The Big Brother example is certainly not the "best" one can find but it was merely convenient for me. Moreover, I don't see a point in grading the most appropriate example. The whole debacle over the big Brother incident stuck in my mind for the sheer childish and egregious behaviour by some.

    You needn't despair and if it bothers you that much, you should introduce a "better" example for a debate on the issue.
  8. Hitler believed in 'absolutes', which is why he invaded the Soviet Union, iirc.

    And on a more preactical note, if I decide to call the new man in the section a "nigger", because we're all fighting for freedom, I'd fully expect to be beaten to a pulp and rightly so.
  9. TT

    seriously mate, what the fuck are you on about? egregious behaviour? No fucker should be allowed to use wanky fucking words like 'egregious'.

    There is no such thing as freedom of speech in an absolute form and never has been. I don't think it exists anywhere on the planet.
  10. Are you suggesting I should be free to tell your neighbours that you have been locked up for molesting an underage girl (NOt that I am suggesting such a thing) without any comeback from you. Or tell your wife that you are about to be arrested for sexual harrasment at work.

    True and absolute freedom of speech has never been a facet of British life
  11. I'm sure Stalin did too. However, I don't harbour a hatred towards 'Bolshevik' types or anyone for that matter.

    If he called you a "white bastard", would he 'rightly' deserve to be beaten up? Of course we would apply common sense and as I said in the above portion. I don't like such words, they're anachronisms and intellectually banal to the extreme.

    However, if on television one blurted such a term live on-air. Why the sudden frenzy by the media who will resort to hyperbole in a churlish response to try and mitigate an embarrassment/faux-pas by pandering quite extremely to people of afro-caribbean or whomever? We go into this very absurd territory where one may not use the term in question and it becomes that cringe-inducing "that word" or "the 'N'" word. We need to be grown up and say the word "nigger" and others like it are deplorable terms and should not be used as a matter of decorum. Which is fine.

    I think this question right now is more of a media-centric one.
  12. All depends on the context in which it was used. If he thinks I am a bastard who is white and therefore a white bastard - crack on fella. If he thinks I am a bastard because I am white and consequently a white bastard then I am gonna kick his fucking lips off!
  13. For the first and perhaps only time ever I find myself agreeing with Whet
  14. I'm not your 'mate'. I loathe the use of over-familiar terms and it's bad form when you don't know the person. Furthermore, I don't think anyone should use words such as "wanky" but I'm no dictator despite the kind suggestion by King_of_the_Burpas.

    Fine. If we go to a different example, for example a newspaper which reports on the use of the word. Do you not find it churlish when it's referred to as "the 'N' word" rather than fully typed?
  15. Agreed, but it does seem strange that Scotsmen can be called "porridge wogs", Irishmen "micks or paddies", Welshmen "sheepshaggers or taffs", Germans as "boxheads or krauts", Amercans as "septics" and of course Frenchmen as "frogs or surrender monkeys" ! This happens regularly on this site without any apparent outrage!
    Double standards, political correctness or hypocrisy?