Just how far should one be allowed to go with regard to speaking their own mind. Freedom of speech is meant to be just that, but many people are critisised, and censured, if their views are deemed to be 'alternative', or differ greatly from the norm. Should you be allowed to stand up and be heard for instance, if your views are likely to cause great upset, and controversy, regardless of how passionate you believe in them?

David Irvings' view of the holocaust in 'Hitlers' War, for example, has been ridiculed, pilloried, and downright trashed. Indeed, he has even spent time in prison for having a view that differs from everyone else's, because he questioned an historic 'fact'. Is that not a breech of his human rights? Is his freedom to say what he believes in being denied?

Whether you agree with him or not, is not the issue here. It is though, that should anyone be denied the right to speak his mind because others don't agree with him, because it doesn't fit with their version of events?

We (I hope) wouldn't accept a book justifying  paedophilia, because if nothing else paedophilia is an illegal act. What Mr Irving did in Austria was (in Austria) also illegal.
But to my knowledge an academic wouldn't get imprisioned for writing the paedophilia book - he would get mocked, scorned, ignored and torn to pieces by his peers. But we wouldn't put him in prison.

Quoted from Kevin

We (I hope) wouldn't accept a book justifying  paedophilia, because if nothing else paedophilia is an illegal act. What Mr Irving did in Austria was (in Austria) also illegal.
But to my knowledge an academic wouldn't get imprisioned for writing the paedophilia book - he would get mocked, scorned, ignored and torn to pieces by his peers. But we wouldn't put him in prison.

Strange that it should actually be illegal in Austria. I guess this is them trying to distance themselves from their past. It's more something you'd expect from a Middle Eastern country rather than a member of the EU. I expect Austria still allows people to be believe that God created the heavens and the earth? It strikes me as a little 'Big Brotherish', and I use the term cautiously, to deny someone a voice when he thinks he has evidence against an historical 'fact'.

The law exists in  13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. Not many of those countries can hold their heads too high when it comes to the holocaust.
Attempts have been made to make the law europe wide, but thankfully this has been resisted by the UK and nordic nations.
Gallileo was imprisioned for writing that the earth revolved around the sun. (dangerous idea - it removes earth from the centre of the universe. If the earth isn't the centre, then how can we be God's chosen ones? And if we aren't God's chosen ones then how can the church assume ultimate power over our lives?)
We can't go back to those days.

I actually find that quite frightening. I thought you'd come back with Germany, but never realised about the others. Is it actually illegal to speak about it publicly, or just to write about it/have a different opinion? When this sort of thing starts happening you wonder where it will stop.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I actually find that quite frightening. I thought you'd come back with Germany, but never realised about the others. Is it actually illegal to speak about it publicly, or just to write about it/have a different opinion? When this sort of thing starts happening you wonder where it will stop.

"anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews."
"Plays down" alone means you can be imprisioned for disputing the figures for the holocaust, let alone denying it.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Just how far should one be allowed to go with regard to speaking their own mind. Freedom of speech is meant to be just that, but many people are critisised, and censured, if their views are deemed to be 'alternative', or differ greatly from the norm. Should you be allowed to stand up and be heard for instance, if your views are likely to cause great upset, and controversy, regardless of how passionate you believe in them?
David Irvings' view of the holocaust in 'Hitlers' War, for example, has been ridiculed, pilloried, and downright trashed. Indeed, he has even spent time in prison for having a view that differs from everyone else's, because he questioned an historic 'fact'. Is that not a breech of his human rights? Is his freedom to say what he believes in being denied?

Whether you agree with him or not, is not the issue here. It is though, that should anyone be denied the right to speak his mind because others don't agree with him, because it doesn't fit with their version of events?

With the caveat that I am not a legal scholar: There is a Constitutional tradition in the States that that behavior, even unpopular or controversial, is protected against the "tyrrany of the majority", and can't be infringed. Limits exist of course, most famously that one doesn't have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's that same legal tradition that allows White Supremacy groups the right to hold marches and rallies on Main Street in mid-America towns (where, I should add, those views are generally extremely unpopular). Those with opposing views have the same right to protest, and of course often do.

I suspect that one could also publish a book denying the Holocaust here without fear of legal reprisal; probably even a book trying to justify pedophilia, or overthrow of the US. I believe the bright line is that one can't be reasonably perceived as inciting such illegal activity. So you could write a book saying that the overthrow of the US is the right thing to do, but you could be penalized if it were reasonably thought you were trying to get others to do it in an illegal fashion (violence, etc.).

Things have changed somewhat here over the past 7 years, but that's a different story, covered in other threads on this forum.

Nice post. In the UK it is now illegal to protest within 1km of Parliament Square (this includes the traditional start point of Trafalga Square) without consent from the police.

I hear it is also illegal to fly the Flag Of St. George in England. It has to be the Union Jack! Is this true?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I hear it is also illegal to fly the Flag Of St. George in England. It has to be the Union Jack! Is this true?

No it's not (thank God). Though at every football tournament they appear and there is debate about it's racial overtones (though only among the middleclass Guardian reading types). Absurd really.

Quoted from Kevin

No it's not (thank God). Though at every football tournament they appear and there is debate about it's racial overtones (though only among the middleclass Guardian reading types). Absurd really.

Just found a website where someone was complaining about their neighbours flying a St George flag. Their complaint was that it was "common and tacky."  The class war lives on.

Quoted from Kevin

Just found a website where someone was complaining about their neighbours flying a St George flag. Their complaint was that it was "common and tacky."  The class war lives on.

They probably associate it with football fans! Actually it's only in recent years that England football fans have draped the St George's flag all over the stadium. Until about 5 years ago it was all Union Jacks. It's also about time The State National Anthem was dropped in favour of an English Anthem. Land Of Hope And Glory would rouse the fans and the team, instead of sending them to sleep.

Can you guys show the two flags for we ignoranti?

Flag Of St. George (English Flag)


Union Flag (Flag of The United Kingdom)

Hmmph. Common and tacky doesn't come close.


( )

As a symbol of our nation the flag strangely aligns us with the nordic countries - it is of the same family as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Yet that connection ended historically at Stamford Bridge in 1066. It bears no relation to the tricolors of our mainland neighbours (and the Irish) with whom we have much closer historical ties. I don't think we've ever forgiven them for Hastings.
I like flags. My favourites are Japan and Turkey. Simple and distinctive, they make excellent "trademarks". The one I despise the most is my own New Zealand flag. Derivitive and nondescript - it describes a nation not sure where it is or what it wants to be.

Hans Teeuwen is a famous Dutch comedian. His ideas on Freedom Of Speech are controversial at times, but a lot of people here agree with him. Watch (it's underlined).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knRLJp-nqSg

I always liked Brazil's flag.  Nepal's is different (pennant-like more than flag).  Switzerland is classic.  I also like the Marshall Islands.  The EU flag is sorta boring.  

Yep about the EU flag. Boring is as boring does. Might be something to do with the recent alternatives: (boring don't seem so bad)

I guess that's why they went for baby blue.  Red's got some bad associations . . . .

I think Japan's flag is pretty cool, and i always liked the Union Jack. Canada's flag is pretty boring to me. It doesn't have a lot of history and looks too much like a product logo or something.

I like Canada's flag.  It's eco-friendly and simple.  I bet it's the only flag with a leaf on it.  Japan's rising sun always seemed a little bit arrogant.  "Hey, we're the rising sun, MF!"  Canada is saying, "Hello there, friend, we're a maple leaf.  Can I get you some tea?"

Quoted from Mairi

I think Japan's flag is pretty cool, and i always liked the Union Jack. Canada's flag is pretty boring to me. It doesn't have a lot of history and looks too much like a product logo or something.

I think Canada's flag is a masterpiece of compromise and branding. You've got the tricolor shape to appease the French and the completely neutral maple leaf. It's instantly recognisable and a good answer to a thorny problem. NZ could use this as an example.

The Union Jack always seemed little bit schizophrenic to me.  Too many crossing lines and colors--I'm starting to feel hypnotized.  Yes, I will be a good subject.  Yes, I will mind the gap.  

Hi everyone ...thanks for welcoming me to the forum...

   The Union Flag , to give it its correct name ( it's only a Union Jack when flown from a boat or ship) is actually an

amalgam of 3 flags, Scottish ( Blue  " X"cross) English ( red cross) and Welsh ( Red X cross)...personally I always

thought it looked it's best as Pete Townshends jacket circa 1965!!!

Quoted from walrusgumboot

Hi everyone ...thanks for welcoming me to the forum...

   The Union Flag , to give it its correct name ( it's only a Union Jack when flown from a boat or ship) is actually an

amalgam of 3 flags, Scottish ( Blue  " X"cross) English ( red cross) and Welsh ( Red X cross)...personally I always

thought it looked it's best as Pete Townshends jacket circa 1965!!!

Welcome mate!

Quoted from walrusgumboot

   The Union Flag is actually an amalgam of 3 flags, Scottish ( Blue  " X"cross) English ( red cross) and Welsh ( Red X cross)...personally I always thought it looked it's best as Pete Townshends jacket circa 1965!!!

You sure? I'm pretty confident that the red diagonal is St Patricks cross representing Northern Ireland. Wales isn't represented on the Union Flag.
And its best use is Pete Townsend? - sir, I do not concur

Here's how it works:



So you can see, Wales is not represented in the flag. This is because when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, the two Kingdoms were merged, and the flag became that of Great Britain. At that time Wales was part of England. The current flag dates from 1801, when The Kingdom of Great Britain was merged with The Kingdom of Ireland, to form The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland. I hope you're all paying attention. I shall be asking questions later!

Very hypnotizing . . . I mean enlightening.

But thanks for the information. What other music forum can you get this level of sophistication from?  Not Led Zeppelin's, I think!

This was in the news recently - a Welsh MP has called for the welsh dragon to be incorporated. Here is one suggestion

Personally I think this puts too much emphasis on the dragon. I would be happy for it to appear in the upper left quandrant.

The flag should have been rediesigned when Wales became a Principality. The one in your post is absurd. If they're having the dragon, we should have the three lions, the Scots; the thistle, and the Irish...the potato!

Quoted from BlueMeanie

The flag should have been rediesigned when Wales became a Principality. The one in your post is absurd. If they're having the dragon, we should have the three lions, the Scots; the thistle, and the Irish...the potato!

I can understand the welsh wanting some representation on the national flag. I don't think the fact that it wasn't done earlier negates the need for some compromise now (it would be the decent and proper thing to do.)If you don't use the dragon (and it doesn't sit very easily with the cross design) what would you use?
NZ is going through the same thing. The current flag represents only a part of the nations inhabitants. I don't like the popular Koru alternative - it just looks ugly and is just as alienating. I think we/they should go with something neutral like The Silver Fern (same as Canada chose the neutral Maple Leaf to counter the same problem). Understandably, for minorities these things matter more than they do to the dominant culture. (Me and you)
The NZ Koru flag

Quoted from Kevin

This was in the news recently - a Welsh MP has called for the welsh dragon to be incorporated. Here is one suggestion

Personally I think this puts too much emphasis on the dragon. I would be happy for it to appear in the upper left quandrant.

just use the background of the welsh flag at the bottom ?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

If they're having the dragon, we should have the three lions, the Scots; the thistle, and the Irish...the potato!

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Come on, photoshoppers! Get to work designing the new all-inclusive flag!

Quoted from alexis

I suspect that one could also publish a book denying the Holocaust here without fear of legal reprisal; probably even a book trying to justify pedophilia, or overthrow of the US. I believe the bright line is that one can't be reasonably perceived as inciting such illegal activity. So you could write a book saying that the overthrow of the US is the right thing to do, but you could be penalized if it were reasonably thought you were trying to get others to do it in an illegal fashion (violence, etc.).

Things have changed somewhat here over the past 7 years, but that's a different story, covered in other threads on this forum.

It is illegal to publicly advocate the violent overthrow of the United States Government. If you wrote a book saying that it's "the right thing to do", you could probably be charged with sedition.

Here's a link to a description of the law that made it illegal, the Smith Act (or as it's formally known "The Alien Registration Act of 1940"):

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/smithactof1940.html

It's a felony, I believe.

[quote=483]Here's how it works:



why do you have 3 different flags for one. greedy!

well, on the other hand we include all 50 states.

Ok............"Freedom of Speech"???  I think America has it all WRONG with the "freedom of speech" we're to have..........why have we, the USA, have the "political correctness" crap going on???  Oh, we can't say THAT or THIS or WHO or WHAT........know what I mean???  I think the 1970's were more liberal than what we're living today.  I WANT to excercise my "freedom of speech" what the first amemdment in our constitution says I can.........and...."bear arms" is we want on another note..........