The right to freedom of speech...?

[sp1814]

Members of the fundamentalist ultra-right wing Westboro Baptist Church, will attempt to fly into the country on Friday to picket a play called The Laramie Project.

The play, by Moises Kaufman, centres on the murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was killed in a homophobic attack in 1998.

The WBC are famous for picketing funerals of gay men who have died of AIDS, and even turned up to Matthew Shepherd's funeral, shouting "No fags in heaven" (must've been pleasant to his family).

Question - is there a point at which the blanket acceptance of free speech makes people feel uneasy?

Or should we simply say, "Free speech is free speech and if you don't like what's being said, tough"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief /2009/feb/18/religion-christianity-westboro

[Verix]

It's definatly a tricky one but we can't ban people from entering the country just in case they may do something we disagree with.

I admit it's not ideal but we should let them in (imo), let them do what they want to do and then arrest them if anything they do is deemed as illegal. Besides, banning them would only provide them with the kind of publicity that Geert Wilder enjoyed last week.

[Octavius]

There comes a point where obnoxious people have to be prevented from doing obnoxious things, before they get a chance to do them.

How on earth can you control that? People a few days ago were up in arms with Geert Wilders being barred before he did anything. As said by Gromit, let them come in and if they break the laws of the land, let them pay for it.

[ludwig]

"let them come in and if they break the laws of the land, let them pay for it."

Perhaps, - but on the other hand why bother? When you know in advance what their intentions are (because they make no secret of them), why not tell them to f*k off before they even arrive?. Save alot of time and trouble.

Like I said, it's not easy but sometimes I think it has to be done even in a tolerant society.

[Quinlad]

I can't make my mind up on this.

Does it make a difference that they're not British citizens? I dunno. Here we can plan anti-fascist marches and the police will expect trouble and make arrangements to police it. But at great cost.

Are we morally obliged to fork out that cost in the case of tourist protestors? Does their freedom to express themselves outweigh our right to our money?

There's a difference between a thought crime and conspiracy to commit a crime. If you and I make arangements to travel to a funeral and harrass people, then before we've even got there we've committed a crime. The police don't have to wait until we've gone and done it. Is that not a factor?

But do let them in - they're absolutely hilarious.

[Oneeyedvic]

Intention to commit a crime is almost as bad as committing an actual crime.

If someone said that they were going to kill you, you would expect them to be stopped and prosecuted by the police.

Your argument seems to rely on the fact that although they have stated their intention, they haven't actually done anything so shouldn't be charged.

Does that sound right to you?

We can't always guess what people's motives are - but we must attempt to protect citizens of this country from harm - not just physical but mental as well.

As with the Dutch politician last week, and as with Muslim clerics that preach hate - these people should be banned from entering the country as their intent is to cause British citizens mental anguish.

[Octavius]

I am not sure you could ally �I�m going to kill you� with �I�m going to come over there and shout at you� � is your perspective right?

Threatening to kill is a crime. Threatening to shout at some�.people in protest isn�t, or is my understanding of law out of date�..?

[ludwig]

Quinlad - 'tourist protestors' - exactly.

That's what it comes down to for me. Do we not already have enough homophobes, child abusers, religious nutters and hate preachers here already without having to ship in a few extra from abroad?

By the way, they would be hilarious if they didn't involve their kids, as they do it's just sad and unpleasant.

[Oneeyedvic]

Threatening to kill is a crime. Threatening to shout at some�.people in protest isn�t, or is my understanding of law out of date�..?

I was talking about stopping someone due to their intention.

And yes, I believe that shouting certain homophobic things is illegal.

[Octavius]

If you like the circus freak show where, like the Victorians, you can parade up and down and point at the freakish caged people or the prisoned insane in their cells, guffaw and then go home to your tea and crumpets with a clear conscience, then yes hilarious. I guess that is why they are so popular in the media.

For me, and I am sure many others, nothing about them is funny since they spread misery, hatred and unpleasantness and cause offence to anyone and everyone wherever they tread.

[Octavius]

Anyway, it appears that they have been banned.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7 898972.stm?lss

[sp1814]

I'm not so much sitting on the fence on this, as climbing from one side of the fence to the other and back again.

I can't make up my mind what's worse - curtailment of the right to free speech, or my disgust at those who abuse that right.

[Octavius]

Dontcha get splinters in yer 'arris doing that fence jumping thing?!

[jno]

there are many rights, and some of them overlap and conflict, so they can never be absolute. My right to stand next to you shouting 'kill all blacks' conflicts with your right not to be lynched. That's one's easy - your right to life outweighs my right to mouth off. Others have to be much more delicately balanced. My guess the right to think</i? what you like can't be touched, but rights to do</i? things are always abridged by others' rights. So no, I don't think freedom of speech is ever absolute.