Does freedom of speech give people the right to be horrible?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm saying this because of actor and activist Laurence fox insulting a female journalist on air on a news channel about not having sex with her because of her views and he referred to her as "that" as though she is a "thing" by saying at the end "Who would want to have sex with that?"

I sometimes can't stand it when someone uses "freedom of speech" as a means to say something vile and horrible about someone else. This obviously not something new as I'm sure there have been a lot of people who have said nasty and disgusting insults in the media and even on social media and will say anything no matter how offensive or horrible because they may not end up with a knock on the door by the police or someone about their comments.

It does make me angry that some people abuse their freedom of speech to say whatever they like and I think that people like Fox and others still have a following of people defending that person's comments about treating someone else as they are an object and also will say "Oh well it's called freedom of speech" or "Oh get over it, they are just words." But words still have consequences and still hurt people even though it's not the same as hurting someone physically.

Haven't both Lawrence Fox & Dan Wooton, the people involved in this derogatory conversation - been suspended by GB News?

Also, Ofcom are investigating I think.

I think there are limits on what a person can or cannot say, and people who claim freedom of speech when faced with criticisms over their own poor commentary, are just grasping at straws really.

It does.

However, having "the right" and it being the right thing to do are very different.

In most of the world you have the right to commit adultery. Doesn't mean you're not going to get dumped or divorced if you do!

It simply means you can't go to jail for certain types in speech.

Some countries criminalize hate speech, though some of those countries define hate speech more narrowly or broadly than others. Germany and Sweden's laws are the strictest.

I like to have freedom of speech in a political sense but some people think that being offensive on a personal level (when it is completely out of context) is perfectly acceptable.

If someone has a political view and you don't agree then it you should have the freedom to voice your opposing view but to get personal as Lawrence Fox did is just playground behaviour. Pathetic.

Sure, people are allowed to say awful things like that, and the public can use their free speech to cancel them. But yes I agree there is nothing attractive or cool about using freedom of speech as an excuse to spout vile bigoted diarrhea of the mouth.

I saw a video of someone who was protesting against the Israeli bombing of Gaza who thought it would be a good idea to spray paint live mice in 3 or 4 boxes in the colours of the flag of Palestine and then dump the boxes of mice in a McDonalds restaurant in front of terrified and unsuspecting ordinary people eating and waiting for their food. When I saw that, I personally thought that that was disgusting to do that to those poor mice and to frighten people like that, I mean there might have been some people in there with a phobia of mice. The guy had dumped these boxes of mice in other places but he was eventually arrested. I wonder also if I may even be charged with animal cruelty. I completely understand the Palestinian cause and I don't agree with the wrong-doings of both sides in this conflict and I wish the fighting, bombing and atrocities would stop but using a method like that as a means to protest is appalling.

It does, but decent people will typically choose to waive that right.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean what most people think it means. People are free to say whatever they wish, just as they are free to face the consequences of that speech - It means that Most forms of speech are not illegal but that doesn't mean that all speech has to be tolerated by others.

In the case of releasing vermin into a restaurant - that isn't speech at all...its terrorism.

In some jurisdictions, the fact that they are expressing an opinion means that it would be considered a form of speech. But it isn't purely speech - the danger to public health and forcing a business to close are both bad things that should lead to criminal charges.

Think calling it terrorism is a bit much. Realistically nobody is being terrorised and there's no imminent risk to life.

There are plenty of instances where people are censored, or have to self-censor, due to not wanting to offend others over a view or views that may be genuinely held, for example, on any particular political topic.

In this instance, Lawrence Fox was using his position on broadcast television to ad hominem a journalist in an offensive manner and in bad taste. It was completely unprofessional and he shouldn't be surprised he was sacked.