Free Speech Deemed Contentious.

[Theland]

Our tradition of free speech is threatened by a growing trend find within it reasons to be offended where no offence was ever intended.
Such offence is manufactured, and validated by a subjective redefinition of meaning.
Surely this trend has its roots in post modernism and relativism, where any word or phrase can be deemed to be offensive when no offence was ever intended.
Will this idea ever be challenged successfully to reinstate the value and protection of free speech as it has always be understood?

[Theland]

Martin - You appear to be describing cases where offence is intended.
My concern is with speech that is not used to cause offence but any offence caused on the basis of feelings is manufactured.
A first step to thought control, so beloved by tyrants.

[MartinMillar]

Can you honestly say Theland that you have never made offensive comments on here or anywhere else?
You love to mention lack of free speaking but I feel it’s because it impedes your rants against those you deem deserve it.

[Theland]

Ah now we get to the kernel of it.
Yes I most certainly been offensive.
I don't deny it.
It has been unintentional, or descriptive, or illustrative, but never never intentionally nasty.
And to do what?
Rant?
What have I said that you consider a rant?
Or are you being intentionally offensive?

[MartinMillar]

No not being offensive unless you consider being questioned over your statement offensive

[Theland]

Not at all.
I am not a snowflake manufacturing offence.
I was interested in your suggestion that I have a desire to rant.
Rant? Really? Explain the rant?

[MartinMillar]

Look back on your answers and questions Theland a lot contains rants.
As for snowflake you are definitely not one of them.

[Theland]

Martin - First of all thank you for your interest.
I'll take your word for it that my posts have contained rants.
I will focus on this in the future and try to take care not to get carried away.

[Canary42]

/// I will ... try to take care not to get carried away.///

Good luck with that Theland, I've never managed it myself :-)

[Theland]

Canary, quite.

"Emotions you feel,
Around you they steal,
Saying much more than mere words can."

Yes it's easy to get emotional.

[naomi24]

Anything is ‘contentious’ if someone else doesn’t agree with it. That doesn’t give anyone the right to shut other people up though. If an opinion is worth arguing, argue it. Attempting to silence the opposition is the coward’s way out.

[sevenOP]

"If an opinion is worth arguing, argue it."

A sound idea, in theory, ambiguous and arbitrary in practice; which exemplifies the vagueness that surrounds 'contentious', 'free speech', 'freedom of expression', etc. ( which electronic social media and electronic access to information has highlighted )

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest/speech-offences

[naomi24]

Ahhhh .... the Human Rights Act. That has to be fair ... doesn't it?

[Theland]

Post modernism is a monster with many tentacles.
It is added to my list of things I don't understand.
Doubt if anybody else does either.
I digress.
One of the tentacles is active here.

[pixie374]

I haven't read all of this yet... but while it isn't nice to be insulting... I'm not sure it can actually be made illegal, as it is so subjective. One thing I think is important (as with libel or slander laws) is that if something is provably true... then it cannot be seen as an insult.

[naomi24]

//One thing I think is important (as with libel or slander laws) is that if something is provably true... then it cannot be seen as an insult. //

That no longer applies.

[sevenOP]

" //One thing I think is important (as with libel or slander laws) is that if something is provably true... then it cannot be seen as an insult. //

That no longer applies."

Any proof of that Naomi? As you yourself said

"If an opinion is worth arguing, argue it."

Lead us by example, please.

[sevenOP]

Silence is it Naomi? as per the preferred tactic of many who pontificate on this forum. ( as is the want of this thread's originator )

Ignore what you cannot justifiably reply to, yet continue to spout the rhetoric of advocating debate, e,g,

"You think that’s a smart way to defect rational argument …. but it isn’t. It's cowardice. Rational argument requires rational response. The ball is in your court."

Is it "defect" or deflect, or is it just a coward tactic ?

"The ball is in your court."

[naomi24]

SevenOP, I don’t avoid questions. You’ll forgive me if I don’t hang on to your every word.

The proof you requested.

https://humanism.org.uk/2018/10/29/european-court-of-human-rights-rules-that-austria-can-keep-its-blasphemy-law/

[Spicerack]

Surprised you found this, Naomi. (this thread I mean)

[naomi24]

Spicerack, SevenOp brought it to my attention elsewhere. He thought I was dodging his question.