There is an interesting struggle going on at the World famous Oxford debating society, that is going as high as the highest echelons of Political circles, but should it be allowed?

Irvine has been jailed for denial of the Holocaust and Griffin is Party leader of the BNP, a right wing party with quite extreme views, gaining a strong under swell of public opinion at the moment.

So what do you think, is free speech the most important thing on the agenda, or should there be some sort of tram lines that the Society should keep within, bearing in mind there are no rules within the society barring this sort of debate and there has been a host of previous well known names, OK one of them might have been Michael Jackson, but others have included: Clinton, Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama and even Kermit the Frog.

So what do you think?

One report

Moss

Very difficult question Mossy old boy... I used to be a fierce defender of FOS and still am to an extent but I would vote for not letting someone like Mugabe speak at a UN conference. Irving and the other guy - if I had to make a decision on the board of the ODS I would have to sway towards FOS and then hope that someone shoots him down - verbally of course:)

Okay, I voted yes. However, I don't feel that comfortable about it. I still feel though that free speech is sacred. We then should make up our own mind. That's the ideal, the reality is that many can't seem to make up their own mind and are influenced by 'idiots', who are, after all, entitled to their views...

My dillema exactly Suegha (I don't know who's name's worse to spell???) we really do have to accept free speech but I suppose correct chairmanship of a debate would eliminate too much swaying to one side or the other, I must look up the monk's in Tibet's debating techneque

Free speech is nice in theory, but the even the existence of internet trolls, stalkers, and cranks shows that large communities are not really ready for it.

It gets even harder when you have whole countries/societies believing in religious and/or political ideas which themselves are sanctions against free speech. Do you avoid the topic, or risk making a big stink?

The whole U.S. experiment in "make up your own mind" was a nice one until corporations started to take over many of the information inputs used by the mainstream population, even invading the classrooms in some instances. If people *will* behave like sheep, there is a certain need for polemics and rhetoric on the *left* wing as well as the right.... it's sad, though, as a failure of education.

"S"

as I work running the pub at the Cambridge Counter part - The Cambridge debating Union Society - and have hosted in the past two months everybody from Chris Eubanks, to Mohammar Kaddhafi (via live satelite feed) I'd have to say yes.

Otherwise I'd be out of a job.

Actually, Khaddafi was an interesting example.

He ranted and raved for two hours solid, reading off prepared notes in front of him.

And his words (nonsensical) were raptuorously swallowed whole by the three hundred or so students and guests.

And then spit out.

People made up their own minds about the speaker, and that is really the bottom line, imho.

There is freedom of speech, but another aspect of this is freedom of choice, freedom to disagree.

I'm all for free speech, however am very wary of the multitudes of idiots on this planet who believe anything they hear or believe what they are told to believe in.

On one hand, free speech should only be available to those who wish to preach to people with free minds or...

Taken on balance I don't think free speech should be a mandatory right of any soceity, but rather an earned priveledge. (Decided by who? )

Yes, although uneasily. To deny these odious kind of people a debating platform is to hand them the "moral high ground" of censorship and persecution. In a mature society we should not be afraid of these people and their views when aired in an atmosphere of learned criticism.

The uneasiness comes from doubts regarding the maturity of UK, and other western, societies. The media, often the political fringe, seems to be whipping up various storms against sections of society. That an increasing proportion of that society is unable to see through the webs of distortion is a cause for concern.

They should be given their platform and listened to politely, then their arguments exposed to the full force of open debate for it is only then that their lies and falsehoods can be seen for what they are.

Simple question. What's the opposite of free speech?

Would you prefer to live in a world without it? I wouldn't, so there lies in my answer

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any civilised society. The issue is the degree to which such freedoms are, or should be, limited.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any civilised society. The issue is the degree to which such freedoms are, or should be, limited.

Well said. I voted "with restrictions". For example, its should never be okay to be abusive or defame people.

Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and as we know it was his public speaking ability (and a fair bit of propaganda) that enabled him to win over so many to his cause.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any civilised society. The issue is the degree to which such freedoms are, or should be, limited.

Well said. I voted "with restrictions". For example, its should never be okay to be abusive or defame people.

Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and as we know it was his public speaking ability (and a fair bit of propaganda) that enabled him to win over so many to his cause.

It therefore becomes "you can talk about things we want you talk about but not about things we don't want you to talk about" speech. Or to cut it short "Restricted Speech".

The label "Free Speech" should be taken away if that is the case, because by the very nature of restricting it, means it isn't.

BTW, i too agree that it should be restricted, i just can't agree with the term "Free" if it isn't.

Yes, although uneasily. To deny these odious kind of people a debating platform is to hand them the "moral high ground" of censorship and persecution. In a mature society we should not be afraid of these people and their views when aired in an atmosphere of learned criticism.

Excellent post Phil.

Also, thinking about the 'with restrictions' option, it's tough, who decides on the restrictions?

Excellent thread Moss.

Mossy old boy

Still wearing my Eton tie, What!

I used to be a fierce defender of FOS and still am to an extent but I would vote for not letting someone like Mugabe speak at a UN conference.

Whilst he still has the tacit support of certain influential African Nations, he will be in charge?? of his country, however poorly run, to dis-allow him his pedastal would reflect poorly on the UN as an entity of global dialogue.

However, I don't feel that comfortable about it.

There are a lot of things that go against an individuals personal ideals, mores, culture, beliefs etc, however we go along with some, because we understand that to fight, condemn and disrupt everything that was against our own framework would lead to anarchy and an ever increasing turmoil that leads to promotion of extremism.

We then should make up our own mind.

Moss

That it how it should be, the idiots, well it takes all sorts to make up this particular box of chocolates.

Free speech is nice in theory, but the even the existence of internet trolls, stalkers, and cranks shows that large communities are not really ready for it.

Although I accept in principle that Free Speech, when taken as a whole, is pretty much unworkable, however we are talking about a different set of concepts here.

Moderation of such community forums are here for several purposes, but of the main principal factors is to divulge information and have a certain interaction, however the purpose of Trolls does neither and so defeats the purpose, so you either control or indulge in a process of ever decreasing circles, to the detriment of nearly all..

However Free Speech on a World stage has a different M.O and as such should be treated accordingly, who has the right to stop anothers ideals just because it clashes with their own outlook, their own preconceived ideas of how it should be run or controlled.

When a certain established regime tries to impose their own concept of Civilization you will only encourage the Rebel and Terrorist and when they ultimately prevail, you will call them fellow Internationalists and colleague and the dead are soon forgotten.

Moss

So.. the question has to be asked. Who would advocate "free speech" to muslim radicals trying to propogate terrorism in their quest for pure islam world through jihad? Surely this even goes against the very nature of "free speech" as written in the USA constitution.

"One can talk about, promote it, however as long as they are not doing it - its not against the law?"

Can one talk about any taboo subject freely?

I think not because where one person is talking there will always be others listening & some of those take anti-social ideals to heart.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any civilised society. The issue is the degree to which such freedoms are, or should be, limited.

Well said. I voted "with restrictions". For example, its should never be okay to be abusive or defame people.

Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and as we know it was his public speaking ability (and a fair bit of propaganda) that enabled him to win over so many to his cause.

I think you should get a posting ban for a few weeks for mentioning the war.

BTW, one of the things that made us laugh when Khaddafi was speaking (and his was a speech, not a debate) was that, after he'd gone on and on about Israel Not Existing (he called it Israel, unlike many of his arab counterparts who call the land "occupied territories") He ranted and raved that Israel did not exist, then he said that we/they/anybody shouldn't bomb Israel... not because of the tragic loss of life that would occur (cos Israeli's don't exist, right?) but rather, Israel shouldn't be bombed because of the loss of Palestinian life.

He was so full of crap, but an entertaining man to watch nonetheless.

Most of the time he couldn't read his own writing on the A4 sheets of paper he held right up to his nose very frequently.

Thing is, I'm a bit miffed. Cos his twenty people who came to the Society installed a 103 inch plasma flatscreen thingie.

Khaddafi said we could keep it!

His people took it away.

103 inch TV!

Perhaps if the debates of the Oxford Debating society, and many other significant forums, where given as much public exposure as the likes of Richard Littlejohn and John Gaunt we would live in a much better society.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to a healthy society, but the balance of debate in the public eye is bias toward the nay sayers and politicians.

Since the establishment of the Oxford Debating Society, the freedom and enlightenment it represents have been attacked by those who have most to lose from a well informed and educated public.

In England although this freedom is relatively restricted in comparison to Europe, I would like to hope the voice of reason would prevail over the heckling of the opponents of progress,

but what of the rest of the world...?

We know that some people will live their whole lives never being to express how they truly feel, we take for granted the feeling that such expression gives us, but for many without such expression they will never truly live.

I read something today along the lines that if man ever finds a solution to the worlds problems it will be the most revolutionary reversal of his record we have ever known, it's seems we will always be at conflict with each other, we've just got to keep fighting the 'good' fight.

So.. the question has to be asked. Who would advocate "free speech" to muslim radicals trying to propogate terrorism in their quest for pure islam world through jihad? Surely this even goes against the very nature of "free speech" as written in the USA constitution.

"One can talk about, promote it, however as long as they are not doing it - its not against the law?"

Can one talk about any taboo subject freely?

I think not because where one person is talking there will always be others listening & some of those take anti-social ideals to heart.

A good post and a case in point to the negative bias in public exposure to debate, the subject of Islamic fundamentalism is very black and white and the negative stance over all debate on it dominates the media to the point where the only exposure to debate on the subject is negative and myopic.

This subject is controlling societies of both East and West and although there is willingness by intellectuals on both sides to engage in constructive dialogue which would be understood and apreciated by the majority, the majority of public airtime is given to the conflict and opinion of a small, but powerful, minority on both sides to the point where the voice of reason is either shut out or just gives up, leaving the negative protrayal of the relationship between Islam and the rest of the world as the only important issue, this perpetuates the conflict and halts progress.

So.. the question has to be asked. Who would advocate "free speech" to muslim radicals trying to propogate terrorism in their quest for pure islam world through jihad?

I thought earlier this might come up and thought about putting it in a previous post, however it is my opinion that if people want to listen to the likes of Abu Hamza, well they should be allowed, but if they advocate the destruction of the very fabric that they feed off to survive, then these benefits of the state, if they are being used should be forfeited, furthermore if any radicalized person who is caught in the process of terrorism, then the perpetrator of that radicalism should be charged as aiding and abetting.

"One can talk about, promote it, however as long as they are not doing it - its not against the law?"

So yes I agree with this.

Can one talk about any taboo subject freely?

Yes, I cannot think of one that shouldn't.

where one person is talking there will always be others listening & some of those take anti-social ideals to heart.

Yes, this will always be the case, but should all matters be open to review by someone, then who, who is watching the watchers?

Where do you stop?

Moss

Of Gaunt and Littlejohn

They are only given more exposure, because they are in the popular press, if you but the said newspapers then you pays your money and takes your choice, I don't.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to a healthy society, but the balance of debate in the public eye is bias toward the nay sayers and politicians.

Since the establishment of the Oxford Debating Society, the freedom and enlightenment it represents have been attacked by those who have most to lose from a well informed and educated public.

Even now the protesters are gathering outside and the police await.

it's seems we will always be at conflict with each other, we've just got to keep fighting the 'good' fight.

Ah, but what is the 'good' fight.

in public exposure to debate, the subject of Islamic fundamentalism is very black and white and the negative stance over all debate on it dominates the media to the point where the only exposure to debate on the subject is negative and myopic.

It is only negative because people hear what they want to hear, but I do agree.

relationship between Islam and the rest of the world as the only important issue, this perpetuates the conflict and halts progress.

Just today, a teacher working in Libya has been arrested with a possible sentence of the Lash or Prison, because she allowed her students to call a teddy bear Muhammad.

Is she naive or stupid, or is the society she lives in barbaric or stupid?

Moss

Of Gaunt and Littlejohn

They are only given more exposure, because they are in the popular press, if you but the said newspapers then you pays your money and takes your choice, I don't.

I think it shows the poor level of engagement with the general populace on serious points of debate, that the views held by such ideologues are accepted by many.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to a healthy society, but the balance of debate in the public eye is bias toward the nay sayers and politicians.

Since the establishment of the Oxford Debating Society, the freedom and enlightenment it represents have been attacked by those who have most to lose from a well informed and educated public.

Even now the protesters are gathering outside and the police await.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but the history of the Oxford Debating Society is filled with 'conflict' with the establishment,

it may make the front page of Private Eye, but it certainly would never be issue raised on the 6 o'clock news.

it's seems we will always be at conflict with each other, we've just got to keep fighting the 'good' fight.

Ah, but what is the 'good' fight.

Expressing and promoting ideas that create an interest in self determination and freedom from mental slavery.

in public exposure to debate, the subject of Islamic fundamentalism is very black and white and the negative stance over all debate on it dominates the media to the point where the only exposure to debate on the subject is negative and myopic.

It is only negative because people hear what they want to hear, but I do agree.

Even Rupert Murdoch might want to correct you on that one...

relationship between Islam and the rest of the world as the only important issue, this perpetuates the conflict and halts progress.

Just today, a teacher working in Libya has been arrested with a possible sentence of the Lash or Prison, because she allowed her students to call a teddy bear Muhammad.

Is she naive or stupid, or is the society she lives in barbaric or stupid?

Moss

There is also a case at the moment where a woman in Saudi Arabia was gang raped by 7 men, they have been convicted, but because she was in the company of a man that was not her relative she has been sentenced to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes.

Yes that is barbaric and stupid, and there are elements within Saudi Arabia that are trying to highlight this case and use it as a platform to debate the rights and freedoms in Saudi, one of the most restrictive countries in the world. Without free speech we would all live in that kind of enviroment. Freedom of speech and debate on such 'barbaric' issues is needed in the muslim world too.

, it may make the front page of Private Eye, but it certainly would never be issue raised on the 6 o'clock news.

Guess what was on the 6 o'clock hews today

Good Luck

Moss

I wouldn't know Moss I never watch it (only Channel 4 sometimes), but if the issues raised by the Oxford Debating Society are on prime time news there's hope for us all...

Another thought on freedom of speech:

There is no freedom of speech when some individuals or parties have louder voices than others.

Moss, FYI,

We hosted the "Doha Debate" yesterday, went really well.

Debate headed: "This House believes that Britain's influence in the Middle East is in Terminal Decline"

Doha Debate Website

PROPOSITION:

Shlomo Ben Ami - Former Isreali Foreign Minister

Baroness Faulkner - First Muslim Peer

OPPOSITION:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind - Former British Foriegn Secretary

Raghida Dergham - Al Hayat Columnis

Showing on BBC World on Saturday 1st December at 0810 GMT with repeats at 1410 and Sunday 2nd at 0110, 0810 & 2010 GMT

On a side note: I thought it pretty funny, in a good way, that the previous night I had some of the Iraqi boys downloading music on my laptop so the Quatari university students could dance to music they liked in my Bar.

Of those that voted 27% couldn't care less!!

Anyway, it doesn't really matter as Free speech was again shown to be in terminal decline, as the event was invaded by various groups and the agenda completely disrupted whilst the Police looked on, later stating that their concern was for the safety of people and not run the show for the organisers.

No cordon, no arrests, no attempt.

And I thought part of their role was instill a sense or order and keep the peace!

Moss

Another thought on freedom of speech:

There is no freedom of speech when some individuals or parties have louder voices than others.

I guess you are right, but you know as the signature says:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke

'Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts'. EBW

'Two things reduce prejudice: Education and Laughter'. LJP

Moss

Moss, FYI,

We hosted the "Doha Debate" yesterday, went really well.

Debate headed: "This House believes that Britain's influence in the Middle East is in Terminal Decline"

Doha Debate Website

PROPOSITION:

Shlomo Ben Ami - Former Isreali Foreign Minister

Baroness Faulkner - First Muslim Peer

OPPOSITION:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind - Former British Foriegn Secretary

Raghida Dergham - Al Hayat Columnis

Showing on BBC World on Saturday 1st December at 0810 GMT with repeats at 1410 and Sunday 2nd at 0110, 0810 & 2010 GMT

On a side note: I thought it pretty funny, in a good way, that the previous night I had some of the Iraqi boys downloading music on my laptop so the Quatari university students could dance to music they liked in my Bar.

Crikey Kayo you are doing more for Middle East peace than Blair & Bush

Moss

Can I quote you on that!

I certainly hope that whatever I do is more constructive than what B&B have done.