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?
What makes you think we ever had free speech in the first place?
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.
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 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.
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
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. ;-)
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.
"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 ........
Sorry Fabio but I think that's a very unhelpful remark, you really have no idea as to whether Kent had ulterior motives or not. Is it not likely that a discussion on free speech would take off on a political tangent?
Here we go again,
Happy as can be,
All good friends and
Jolly good company
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.
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.