Just a thought!

[Aqua1]

 

[Moriarty]

View attachment 13809

That depends on a lot.
I could talk a lot about the idiots running the country because it makes my tin of beans get more expensive.

It's always subjective.

That cannot be a catch all statement.

 

[Aqua1]

That depends on a lot.
I could talk a lot about the idiots running the country because it makes my tin of beans get more expensive.

It's always subjective.

That cannot be a catch all statement.

It isnt!
Too many people these days have an opinion about others and feel it's their right to do so. If we were all to tend to our own little piece of the world then it might just be a nicer place to be!

 

[TemptingEnigma]

It isnt!
Too many people these days have an opinion about others and feel it's their right to do so. If we were all to tend to our own little piece of the world then it might just be a nicer place to be!

It IS everyone's right to have an opinion. The tricky part is knowing when to voice it and when to keep it as a thought bubble.

 

[Aqua1]

It IS everyone's right to have an opinion. The tricky part is knowing when to voice it and when to keep it as a thought bubble.

Perfect wording......Thankyou!

 

[Moriarty]

It IS everyone's right to have an opinion. The tricky part is knowing when to voice it and when to keep it as a thought bubble.

The problem is what is socially and/or legally acceptable changes whereas long held beliefs do not.
I can have any opinion I wish, I can voice any opinion I wish, by law.
Until the law changes.

Then I am not allowed to voice those opinions because I am what, a danger to society?

While I believe all speech has consequence, I don't understand why someone getting offended by something I say has to be regulated under law.

If I say something which people don't agree with, argue the point, prove me wrong.

The best cure for bad and/or good ideas is debate, hash them out and find a truth which can be unifying.
That way we get rid of bad ideas, find better ones and thus find consolidation of opinion by seeing both sides of an argument.

When we get into the state that we are not allowed to say something "By Law" with all the threats and penalties that entails then we are over stretching the bounds of the idea of law.

Yes one should not shout fire in a theatre, may likely cause panic in which case people may be hurt or possibly die.
Yes one should not call for violence against anyone else period.
Those examples are laws to protect en masse.

What I say in my own house with friends, on a public forum where disagreement is the basis of discussion, or at speakers corner where any and all views are allowed within the law should not be prosecutable unless I am planning say a bombing or other terrorist threat.

If I talk to someone in the pub who disagrees with me and takes umbridge, slaps me about a bit, then those are the consequences of free speech, those I can agree with.
If someone posts something mean about me on social media or in a forum, so what, there is no threat to life.

The law is not needed.

We are taking the law which is meant for all and protecting a minority of views from open discussion because they "Feel" threatened.

If one has a stong opinion, at least have the fortitude to be able to fight for it.
That is discussion, that is debate, that is what should be protected by law.
Not that I am not allowed to say something because I may hurt someones feelings.