As most know I am a fan of Jon Gaunt. For those who do not know him he was a radio presenter at Talk Sport.
His views are often extreme, sometimes right wing, but always said with passion. He has always been allowed to express free speech on his shows, and has crossed swords with many a Liberal on his shows.
Many do not like his ways or his views but...he loves being British and it's way of life. He was sacked from his radio show for calling a councilor a " Nazi ", which I accept was wrong but was NOT a sackable offence, in my opinion.
So both Jon Gaunt and his " fans " was suprised that the very people he dislikes have now come to his aid. The group Liberty which advocates human rights for even the most foulest of people, including terrorists, have been appalled at the sacking of Jon Gaunt. As even they think that to sack him is a downward spiral towards not having the free speech this country has fought for.
This artical is an amazing thing really as even Liberty have to admit that to lose free speech, would be to deny the very fundamentals, that make this a great country....do you agree or not?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Have we still got free speech?
British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
But it adds that governments can restrict free speech for, among other reasons, in the interests of national security, preserving public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime.
For libertarians like Brendan O'Neill, editor of the anti-censorship website Spiked, the convention does not go nearly far enough in protecting his right to say whatever he likes.
"I believe that there should be no limits at all on free speech," he said. "No-one has the right not to be offended: that is the essence of a free society."
The voices of many ordinary people are effectively silenced these days by a combination of "political correctness" and anti-freedom of speech laws. Legislation governing how we speak about such subjects as religion or a person's race, being just two examples. Words and phrases that have been used for centuries, without malice, are now insipid in peoples mouths, and said to cause "offense" by those very same "speech police" who, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to the violence, foul language, and sexual references blasted daily through our TV sets. A phenomenon that really does cause offense to many people.
But it adds that governments can restrict free speech for, among other reasons, in the interests of national security, preserving public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime.
For libertarians like Brendan O'Neill, editor of the anti-censorship website Spiked, the convention does not go nearly far enough in protecting his right to say whatever he likes.
"I believe that there should be no limits at all on free speech," he said. "No-one has the right not to be offended: that is the essence of a free society."
The voices of many ordinary people are effectively silenced these days by a combination of "political correctness" and anti-freedom of speech laws. Legislation governing how we speak about such subjects as religion or a person's race, being just two examples. Words and phrases that have been used for centuries, without malice, are now insipid in peoples mouths, and said to cause "offense" by those very same "speech police" who, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to the violence, foul language, and sexual references blasted daily through our TV sets. A phenomenon that really does cause offense to many people.
Sex God
Maybe this can be a thread for the two of you to get your issues out and move on from the bickering for once? Seeing as you have a thread for free speech- let rip...
Quote by mazandden
Maybe this can be a thread for the two of you to get your issues out and move on from the bickering for once? Seeing as you have a thread for free speech- let rip...
I have been involved in many threads without any bickering at all, it is only when others who are hell bent on causing problems, do these very problems occur.
Lets just keep to the original subject.
I think the British have on many occasions confused free speech with that which came from the mouths of politicians, pub bores, lunatics, extremists, comedians, etc; whilst remaining tight or stiff upper lipped, understated and discreet about many other things. So whilst in theory free speech exists it may not necessarily be practised in the way that people perceive it through free thinking; which remains the more powerful of the two.
Sex God
In Berlin, spring 1945, the British and Americans were over the Rhine. The Russians were not far from Berlin and the city was being pounded from the air, night and day. The place was in ruins, no hope of victory.
BUT, if an ordinary Berliner was to say out loud any expression which doubted ultimate victory and was overheard by a member of the Nazi party, Gestapo or SS, they would be hung from the nearest lampost with a sign round their neck which said "Defeatist"
So of course, no-one with any sense said anything other than, "we believe in Victory".
This was totally false of course, but because of the fear of consequences, people said in public stuff which kept them safe from reprisals.
I am coming to the opinion that to a lesser extent that this is happening in this Country today. Which leads to the answer that we have a lot less freedom of speach than we used to.
John
BUT, if an ordinary Berliner was to say out loud any expression which doubted ultimate victory and was overheard by a member of the Nazi party, Gestapo or SS, they would be hung from the nearest lampost with a sign round their neck which said "Defeatist"
So of course, no-one with any sense said anything other than, "we believe in Victory".
This was totally false of course, but because of the fear of consequences, people said in public stuff which kept them safe from reprisals.
I am coming to the opinion that to a lesser extent that this is happening in this Country today. Which leads to the answer that we have a lot less freedom of speach than we used to.
John
Seems to me that a lot of people think "freedom of speech" is the same thing as "licence to be abusive". It's not.
If I called someone a nazi in the course of my work, I'm sure I'd be hauled over the coals and possibly sacked. If I said to them, "I feel that you're enforcing your views without considering anyone else involved", it gives them the ability to discuss it with me without feeling attacked - no P45 for me. Should this guy be treated any differently to me or the rest of the UK workforce?
On the other hand, the word nazi is used in a specific way nowdays i.e. an extreme jobsworth or someone who acts in a dictatorial way, just like the word tsar/czar has been appropriated for other meanings (no longer relating to Russian rulers of starving subjects or drugs barons but Dame Joan Bakewell for example). So ultimately, it depends on the context in which he used the word as to whether it was a sackable offence.
(Then we need to measure it on the Brand-o-meter to determine whether it was equal to, worse than or less offensive than phoning an old man to talk about shagging his granddaughter
)
I've not heard the entire interview, I haven't clicked on the link to the Sun to see the details, so I have no idea whether he *should* have been sacked - but it sounds like it may have been a case of trial and sentence by the media (or the fear of it at least). Hmmm, what's that saying....those who live by the sword, die by the sword?
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
(edited to correct typo)
If I called someone a nazi in the course of my work, I'm sure I'd be hauled over the coals and possibly sacked. If I said to them, "I feel that you're enforcing your views without considering anyone else involved", it gives them the ability to discuss it with me without feeling attacked - no P45 for me. Should this guy be treated any differently to me or the rest of the UK workforce?
On the other hand, the word nazi is used in a specific way nowdays i.e. an extreme jobsworth or someone who acts in a dictatorial way, just like the word tsar/czar has been appropriated for other meanings (no longer relating to Russian rulers of starving subjects or drugs barons but Dame Joan Bakewell for example). So ultimately, it depends on the context in which he used the word as to whether it was a sackable offence.
(Then we need to measure it on the Brand-o-meter to determine whether it was equal to, worse than or less offensive than phoning an old man to talk about shagging his granddaughter
)I've not heard the entire interview, I haven't clicked on the link to the Sun to see the details, so I have no idea whether he *should* have been sacked - but it sounds like it may have been a case of trial and sentence by the media (or the fear of it at least). Hmmm, what's that saying....those who live by the sword, die by the sword?
I am coming to the opinion that to a lesser extent that this is happening in this Country today. Which leads to the answer that we have a lot less freedom of speach than we used to
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
(edited to correct typo)
Quote by Serendipity
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
True serendipity ... Gaunt was warned on the interview by the politician to refrain from calling him a "Nazi" on numerous occasions but kept on calling him it (hiding behind his right to free speech) The fact that Gaunt hasn't been arrested and was allowed to continue his broadcast is evident he had the right to free speech. The fact he acted like an arse has removed him of the right to continue that "free speech" further on air ... he still has his column in the Sun to provide him with the means to offer short answers to what are complex issues.
Freedom of speech is often curtailed by a contract of employment or something similar. For instance, everyone who contributes to this forum has agreed to the AUP which, in some circumstances, will limit the comments/inferences they're allowed to make. Break that contract/agreement and there are consequences. ;-)
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
As most know I am a fan of Jon Gaunt. For those who do not know him he was a radio presenter at Talk Sport.
His views are often extreme, sometimes right wing, but always said with passion. He has always been allowed to express free speech on his shows, and has crossed swords with many a Liberal on his shows.
Many do not like his ways or his views but...he loves being British and it's way of life. He was sacked from his radio show for calling a councilor a " Nazi ", which I accept was wrong but was NOT a sackable offence, in my opinion.
So both Jon Gaunt and his " fans " was suprised that the very people he dislikes have now come to his aid. The group Liberty which advocates human rights for even the most foulest of people, including terrorists, have been appalled at the sacking of Jon Gaunt. As even they think that to sack him is a downward spiral towards not having the free speech this country has fought for.
This artical is an amazing thing really as even Liberty have to admit that to lose free speech, would be to deny the very fundamentals, that make this a great country....do you agree or not?
I am all for freedom of speech, as an American it is one of the things we holdest dearest withing our constitution..... HOWEVER, with that freedom there does come a responsability to use it wisely.....
Just because there is the freedom to say something, it doesn't mean there there shouldn't be consequences and ramifications to what that person has said...
If I said something abhorant, I would be held to task, I don't see what the difference is on this occasion
With every action there is a reaction.... he was warned that he'd gone too far by one of his guests, he decided to keep pushing....... his decision and no one elses!!
There is freedom of speech...... and freedom of speech with judgement and responsability, he showed a serious and professional lack in his
Quote by Suede-head
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
True serendipity ... Gaunt was warned on the interview by the politician to refrain from calling him a "Nazi" on numerous occasions but kept on calling him it (hiding behind his right to free speech) The fact that Gaunt hasn't been arrested and was allowed to continue his broadcast is evident he had the right to free speech. The fact he acted like an arse has removed him of the right to continue that "free speech" further on air ... he still has his column in the Sun to provide him with the means to offer short answers to what are complex issues.
If you have listened to the interview it is true he did call him a Nazi but..... he quickly changed it to Health Nazi. It was only when the guy kept on that Gaunty did then say ok " you are a nazi ". He was in my opinion provocked into saying that the second time.
In the Sun column he clearly wrote Health Nazi's. In my opinion Talk Sport employed Jon Gaunt for the very reasons that they sacked him for. He always was controversal and outspoken. Why do you think his show attracted so many listeners?
The sacking of Gaunty does lead me to believe that free speech is being eradicated by the day, a bit like the minorities are having more of a say than the majority.
Our priorities seem to be taking a reverse trend nowadays. I wonder if Talk Sport were taken to court over the sacking, would they lose?
Does putting the word health before the word nazi make it more acceptable ? Gaunt knew by using the word he was being controversial ... as you state this is why the radio station employed him.
I agree with Fabio that he had a position that offered him the chance to air his views, the right to free speech ... by using the word nazi he and he alone destroyed that by not balancing that with responsibility.
I agree with Fabio that he had a position that offered him the chance to air his views, the right to free speech ... by using the word nazi he and he alone destroyed that by not balancing that with responsibility.
Quote by Suede-head
Does putting the word health before the word nazi make it more acceptable ? Gaunt knew by using the word he was being controversial ... as you state this is why the radio station employed him.
I agree with Fabio that he had a position that offered him the chance to air his views, the right to free speech ... by using the word nazi he and he alone destroyed that by not balancing that with responsibility.
Ah so Jonathan Woss and that other twat showed responsibilty with their outbursts?
Woss was not even sacked as he should have been. Is what he said not worse than what Gaunty said?
When even the very people who Gaunty dislikes, the liberals, like Liberty comes to his aid, does that mean his words were not a sackable offence?
Talk Sport was unique in allowing a presenter to have and air his views, on subjects that people are nowadays too shit scared to want to talk about.
But Galloway is still there spouting his rubbish, seems he is allowed still to have his free speech. Like not long ago when he openly said " when is someone going to drive a stake through the heart of Maggie Thatcher ".
A lot may not like her or what she did/did not do but....she is an old lady who quit politics years ago, and yet he was still allowed to air his views, even though they were foul and offensive. One rule for the left and one for the right? :dunno:
Sex God
Quote by Suede-head
Does putting the word health before the word nazi make it more acceptable ? Gaunt knew by using the word he was being controversial ... as you state this is why the radio station employed him.
I agree with Fabio that he had a position that offered him the chance to air his views, the right to free speech ... by using the word nazi he and he alone destroyed that by not balancing that with responsibility.
Quote by kentswingers777
Ah so Jonathan Woss and that other twat showed responsibilty with their outbursts?
Woss was not even sacked as he should have been. Is what he said not worse than what Gaunty said?
When even the very people who Gaunty dislikes, the liberals, like Liberty comes to his aid, does that mean his words were not a sackable offence?
But you will remember that Brand resigned before he was pushed, and Ross I believe was a very lucky man not to be sacked,
both could be construed to be an irresponsable use of "free speech".... both could be considered to be gross misconduct" I know that if I said anything like either I would probably be sacked.......
Quote by kentswingers777
Talk Sport was unique in allowing a presenter to have and air his views, on subjects that people are nowadays too shit scared to want to talk about.
But Galloway is still there spouting his rubbish, seems he is allowed still to have his free speach. Like not long ago when he openly said " when is someone going to drive a stake through the heart of Maggie Thatcher ".
A lot may not like her or what she did/did not do but....she is an old lady who quit politics years ago, and yet he was still allowed to air his views, even though they were foul and offensive. One rule for the left and one for the right? :dunno:
so now we get to see what the true reason for this thread is...... political diatribe masked as "a proper conversation about free speech!"
as you told someone else quite rudely in my opinion in the thread earlier
"lets keep to the original topic"
Quote by fabio
Does putting the word health before the word nazi make it more acceptable ? Gaunt knew by using the word he was being controversial ... as you state this is why the radio station employed him.
I agree with Fabio that he had a position that offered him the chance to air his views, the right to free speech ... by using the word nazi he and he alone destroyed that by not balancing that with responsibility.
Quote by kentswingers777
Ah so Jonathan Woss and that other twat showed responsibilty with their outbursts?
Woss was not even sacked as he should have been. Is what he said not worse than what Gaunty said?
When even the very people who Gaunty dislikes, the liberals, like Liberty comes to his aid, does that mean his words were not a sackable offence?
But you will remember that Brand resigned before he was pushed, and Ross I believe was a very lucky man not to be sacked,
both could be construed to be an irresponsable use of "free speech".... both could be considered to be gross misconduct" I know that if I said anything like either I would probably be sacked.......
Quote by kentswingers777
Talk Sport was unique in allowing a presenter to have and air his views, on subjects that people are nowadays too shit scared to want to talk about.
But Galloway is still there spouting his rubbish, seems he is allowed still to have his free speach. Like not long ago when he openly said " when is someone going to drive a stake through the heart of Maggie Thatcher ".
A lot may not like her or what she did/did not do but....she is an old lady who quit politics years ago, and yet he was still allowed to air his views, even though they were foul and offensive. One rule for the left and one for the right? :dunno:
so now we get to see what the true reason for this thread is...... political diatribe masked as "a proper conversation about free speech!"
as you told someone else quite rudely in my opinion in the thread earlier
"lets keep to the original topic"
How the heck can you have a dialogue about free speech without being political? :dunno:
How have I gone away from the original topic fgs? It is all a part of the debate..and for what it is worth, I was not rude to anybody thank you very much.
Sex God
"how can you have a convesation about free speech without it becoming political?"
well we were before you just injected it in.....and it was quite an interesting conversation.......
like i said before, it was more to do with profession misconduct.... and people taking responsability for there own speech... be that Ross, Brand, Gaunt, Goody, The woman who got sacked from BBC Bristol, Clarkson, or any other person who has been repremanded!
I am out of this thread.....
it disappoints me that the person who started the thread had alterior motives for this than the title suggested ........
well we were before you just injected it in.....and it was quite an interesting conversation.......
like i said before, it was more to do with profession misconduct.... and people taking responsability for there own speech... be that Ross, Brand, Gaunt, Goody, The woman who got sacked from BBC Bristol, Clarkson, or any other person who has been repremanded!
I am out of this thread.....
it disappoints me that the person who started the thread had alterior motives for this than the title suggested ........
Quote by mazandden
Maybe this can be a thread for the two of you to get your issues out and move on from the bickering for once? Seeing as you have a thread for free speech- let rip...
What are you talking about?
My comment was direct and on-topic which is more than yours is. It has nothing to do with any bickering
My comment relates to the fact that the belief that we have free speech is an illusion and probably always will be.
Quote by Max777or not. Is it not likely that a discussion on free speech would take off on a political tangent?
ulterior motives
There was and still is NO ulterior motive. Threads always move a tad away from the original topic, thats what happens with debates. Fabio knows that and I know that.
Fabio has his right to his opinion, only this time he was way off the mark. He does not agree with my views of that he has made clear many times which is great but... an attack on my reasons is a tad over the top.
Quote by Peanut
Maybe this can be a thread for the two of you to get your issues out and move on from the bickering for once? Seeing as you have a thread for free speech- let rip...
What are you talking about?
My comment was direct and on-topic which is more than yours is. It has nothing to do with any bickering
My comment relates to the fact that the belief that we have free speech is an illusion and probably always will be.
Have to say on this occasion I agree with Peanut. We may not get on too well but we both know where we stand with each other.
Right what was the topic again?
So some opinions differ in this thread as they do in any other thread. Now at what point does free speech become hindered by the opinions of others to such a point that one can no longer feel able to use the right to free speech? As quite possibly happens in many threads in the forum.
Its at this point that one has to accept that their opinion is unpopular and will do damage to one's credibility etc. Free speech becomes gagged by strength of personal feelings and public opinion. So its easily thwarted by clever arguments.
So I think free speech is like the free press, in that you can say what you want as long as most people agree with it, read it and subscribe to your viewpoint. Otherwise you risk being seen as wrong or out of touch with the world.
Its at this point that one has to accept that their opinion is unpopular and will do damage to one's credibility etc. Free speech becomes gagged by strength of personal feelings and public opinion. So its easily thwarted by clever arguments.
So I think free speech is like the free press, in that you can say what you want as long as most people agree with it, read it and subscribe to your viewpoint. Otherwise you risk being seen as wrong or out of touch with the world.
The funny thing is, apart from the over zealous use of the word "nazi or health nazi," I found myself siding with Gaunty`s argument in the interview.
Healthy debate and people putting across their points without name calling, make for a better platform for the free speech they have been given.
As to when free speech needs to be controlled, i believe it should be tempered when words and viewpoints are used that may inflame or incite hatred.
Gaunts sacking had nothing to do with curtailing his free speech but a slap on the wrist for being insensitive with his choice of words. He will hopefully learn a lesson all of us should be taught.
Healthy debate and people putting across their points without name calling, make for a better platform for the free speech they have been given.
As to when free speech needs to be controlled, i believe it should be tempered when words and viewpoints are used that may inflame or incite hatred.
Gaunts sacking had nothing to do with curtailing his free speech but a slap on the wrist for being insensitive with his choice of words. He will hopefully learn a lesson all of us should be taught.
Quote by kentswingers777
This artical is an amazing thing really as even Liberty have to admit that to lose free speech, would be to deny the very fundamentals, that make this a great country....do you agree or not?
I do not know much about Liberty but I thought that they were always for free speech. They have protested for the rights of those that would not have free speech if the "lynch mobs" had their way.
So the way this paragraph is written it sounds like they have just woken up to the fact of losing free speech because of this guy being sacked. I know you like Gaunty but Liberty have not just realised we need free speech because of him Kenty
Dave_Notts
Quote by kentswingers777
Woss was not even sacked as he should have been. Is what he said not worse than what Gaunty said?
Did Jonathan Ross actually said anything though, or did he just do nothing to stop it and giggle in the backgroud? that might explain a suspension rather than sacking (plus he pulls in BBC viewing figures wheareas even MTV have sacked Brand
)When even the very people who Gaunty dislikes, the liberals, like Liberty comes to his aid, does that mean his words were not a sackable offence?
A sackable offence is dictated by a contract of employment and employment law, not by newspapers and pundits. I would guess that John Gaunt has had warnings previously, based on the descriptions of him on this thread.
With regard to Liberty though, supporting the cause of an "enemy" would strengthen their own position as a protector of individual rights - I think it would be over generous to assume that they're acting entirely for the benefit of Gaunt and with no interest in the publicity it will bring them
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Maybe this can be a thread for the two of you to get your issues out and move on from the bickering for once? Seeing as you have a thread for free speech- let rip...
I have been involved in many threads without any bickering at all, it is only when others who are hell bent on causing problems, do these very problems occur.
Lets just keep to the original subject.
No, you're both as bad - six of one and half a dozen of the other. And I think it's very fair to say that it's annoying the hell out of a lot of members. Free speech notwithstanding, you're both spoiling the forum.