Friday, 19 April 2013

Freedom Of Speech (Liverpool Edition)

I forgot i had these on the laptop, we have heard for the last week how Liverpool and their fans want respect shown despite them singing anti Thatcher songs and wishing someone with cancer would die
and for readers dont know who Mark Halsey is :
So, what other pearls of "wisdom" did Liverpool fans send?

Thats Liverpool fans response after their team lost a game of football, as you can see they have the moral high ground on respect ( sarcasm) , now while i run one blog post at the time i NEVER  called for anyone to be investigated to the police, now while i would never post something like that i am a believer in free speech and i live by that advice by Voltaire gave:
 I support the right of anti Thatcher Supporters to protest at her funeral and celebrate her death as part of freedom of expression ( even if i find it distasteful ), there is no middle ground of free speech.

"First they came for the racist tweets, i said nothing, then they came for "offensive" t-shirt wearers, i still said nothing, then they came for "offensive" tweets, again i said nothing, now they come for me, there is no-one to say anything."

For those that struggle to understand this i will put it in big letters and in plain English

 "Supporting freedom of speech does not mean supporting what is said"

For those that chose to take "offence" (offence can only be taken, never given) Twitter comes with  a "Block" option and an "unfollow" option, i suggest you use them instead of phoning the police.

Their is a word for those that demand that someone be locked up for holding views they find "offensive", i just cant think of it at the moment.

Liverpool fans, if you dont want to be "offended" then go and live in the socialist/communist/Marxist paradise of North Korea. 

Note : I support everyone's right to freedom of speech and expression, its called consistency you see!


  1. Supporting in essence absolute free speech is a very dangerous thing to support. Rights do not exist as standalone entities and nor do individuals exercising those rights. You grant people the freedom to say whatever they like with no consequences then you are effectively endorsing the rights of people to incite things like hatred against minority groups.

    Words are essentially a powerful weapon, and in the right hands can be used to convince people to carry out all sorts of atrocities. It’s using words that causes radicalisation of young men which inspires them to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up.

    But the point here is not generally one of free speech and the request for it to be an absolute right, but one of you don’t think that person X should get in to trouble for saying A. Because I am sure that you don’t think people should have the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded building, or the right for someone to spread malicious and unfounded lies about someone which cause them to lose their job, family and home. So if that is the case then it’s not about free speech because you have already accepted that speech should have some limitations placed on it.

    The real question is, should someone be punished for saying something derogatory and offensive with malice of forethought?

    In a modern society you will always get situations where people say things that cause offence, and personally in general everyday conversation I don’t think people should be prosecuted for causing offense. But when someone says something that they know will cause offence, and their reason for saying it is to get that very reaction then you are not talking about free speech.

    It becomes an action intended to cause harm, which under English law can be either physical or psychological or a combination of both. Now I am also going to assume that you wouldn’t condone or think it was fine for a person to bully another person, and that such actions should be punished.

    Now how is saying something with the intent to cause harm or offense any different to what the school playground bully does? Now if you want to live in a civilised society where people have the right to not be subjected to undue and intentional harm (were not talking about accidental offense) then you have to have some recourse for those who have essentially been bullied, don’t you think?

  2. If, rather than trying to spread FUD and using a desperate "slippery slope" argument, the above poster sought to rely on facts, he would accept the dual realities that:

    1) There are plenty of existing laws concerning the fears he seeks to propagate

    2) "Atrocities" are far more prevalent in societies where freedom of expression is curtailed

  3. It's a double-edged sword Billy. Unfortunately, whilst your points are wholly valid, there aren't any Scousers literate enough to read them or intelligent enough to understand them. You can't win. But keep up the excellent work & the fab blog.

  4. I Support The Right Of People To Shout "Theatre" in a crowded Fire.......