Charter 04

Tealeaf

Tealeaf

Town Elder
Tackler
Some of you may well be old enough to remember the dark days of the Cold War. Others may not. Back then, many of our European friends were unfortunate to find themselves on the wrong side of the "Iron Curtain", or the "Berlin Wall".

Without launching into a weighty discourse into the history of Europe 1945-1990 and the eventual fall of the Iron Curtain, one particular group - in what is now the Czech Republic - stood out as a shining beacon of free speech and in the fight against censorship & oppression...the organistion was called Charter 88.

At great risk to themselves, they said the unthinkable and published the unspeakable, against what was then the Soviet equivalent of Political Correctness (You can call it any bloody name you want - it's all about the denial of free speech and freedom to write and publish). But at the end of the day, they won through.........truth and freedom emerged from the dark shadows of the collapsed Iron Curtain.

It's time therefore, to once again begin a new charter....that 0f 2004...it's object to write what we think, without fear of the heavy paw of the Accy Web Monitor's delete button.

Bagpuss, Darby, Yerself and others besides myself are members of this noble crusade.....who will join us?
 
Tealeaf, I'd be careful of using the word "Crusade", which may be reminicent of the Christian Crusades of the 11-1300's, and may offend the ethnic minorities. Though I'm not sure if the Multi-cultured Americans would object to it.

The East Germans know a thing or two about repression of Freedom, and they to won through. Funny how you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time...But not all of the people all of the time!!

When will common-sense prevail and "Free Speech" be restored?
 
Last edited:
Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression. ~Gerard K. O'Neill, 2081
 
 
Kipax with one pee because two causes offence said:
hahaha you will be telling me next that you actually believe in free speech
Click to expand...
I certainly do. But obviously someone on here doesn't. Do you?
 
OMG you do don't you?

Tell me where you think free speech exists in this country and when it started.

There is no such thing as free speech.. there never has been. there are varying levels of free speech but there isn't actually any free speech in this country .Surely you know that?
 
yerself said:
Who are the
"Traditional Enemies"
of Free Speech?
​







Perhaps the moderators of Accyweb should be added to the above.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you included the German Government in your list Yerself. Did you forget NuLabour?

I too believe in the right of All human beings to freedom of speech. The alternative is supression of Free Speech, closely followed by a loss of freedom itself. Anybody who maintains that there is no such thing as free speech has never experienced life outside of their bubble. Britain is regarded by most of the civilised world (and some of the uncivilised world) to be the home of freedom and democracy. The USA is also now regarded as the protector of those values. And long may they continue.
:engsmil: :engsmil:
 
So can anyone at all tell me where and when this freedom of speech came into being?

If you say certain things that the law says you can't then you can be arrested. how does that constitute freedom of speech?

Its not a matter of opinions or living in bubbles? (whats that all about?) Its the law of the land..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caz
I hope your lie down was restful, and that you have recovered.

It doesn't constitue freedom of speech, it denies it!

Which law says I can't use an abbreviated word to describe peoples from the different Indian sub-continent countries? Or from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Or anyother part of the known world?

And on what statute book is freedom of speech prevented?
 
I hope your lie down was restful, and that you have recovered.
Click to expand...

I am asking a perfectly serious question and your acting like a child :(

It doesn't constitue freedom of speech, it denies it!
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.. So where is this freedom of speech your saying exists or used to exist. There has never been freedom of speech.. there have always been laws to stop you saying things you may want to say for whatever reason


Which law says I can't use an abbreviated word to describe peoples from the different Indian sub-continent countries? Or from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Or anyother part of the known world?
Click to expand...

I ahve no idea. i was talking about freedom of speech in general and not just your racist outburst.
 
By the way, Tealeaf informs me that he's temporarily dropping out of this website; due to (his words): "an absence of freedom of speech".

A sad day for us all, and a great loss to the site (albeit temporarily - I hope) . I'll try to keep in touch with him and coax him back. It's sad to loose a sensible member or any member.
 
KIPAX said:
I am asking a perfectly serious question and your acting like a child :(



Exactly my point.. So where is this freedom of speech your saying exists or used to exist. There has never been freedom of speech.. there have always been laws to stop you saying things you may want to say for whatever reason




I ahve no idea. i was talking about freedom of speech in general and not just your racist outburst.
Click to expand...

There we go again...Now go and have a good lie down this time, and close your eyes and relax.
 
There are laws limiting what one can and cannot say under certain circumstances (such as slander and libel) and in a civilised society there needs to be some sort of limit. Total freedom of speech could lead to anarchy.
 
Excatly my point.. there are varying levels of free speech but there is no actual free speech.. there never has been. In all walks of life not just the internet.. there will always be people who would take advantage of real free speech so wether we like it or not it has to be given limits.. Poeple who dont like thes elimits might then argue that there freedom of speech has been taken away.

The awfull truth is that our opinions dont count for anything.. there is no free speech and in all honesty i cant envisage a time when there ever would be..


Oh dear... Darby if your not going to contribute to the debate then can you please direct your childishness elsewhere.....

.....
 
KIPAX said:
Excatly my point.. there are varying levels of free speech but there is no actual free speech.. there never has been. In all walks of life not just the internet.. there will always be people who would take advantage of real free speech so wether we like it or not it has to be given limits.. Poeple who dont like thes elimits might then argue that there freedom of speech has been taken away.

The awfull truth is that our opinions dont count for anything.. there is no free speech and in all honesty i cant envisage a time when there ever would be..


Oh dear... Darby if your not going to contribute to the debate then can you please direct your childishness elsewhere.....

.....
Click to expand...

Oh dear, get down from your hobby horse for a minute.

I can see exactly the point from Willow, and he's right. Total anarchy would be the result of the "lack of Laws" that do not prohibit, but limit how much one can say. You can still say it...but you may be prosecuted..in law. The freedom is that if you believe you are right, and cannot be proven wrong...then say it. All of the forgoing refers to libel and slander, which are different issues from freedom of speech.

Back once more to the law. Where does the law of the land prohibit saying certain words?
Accusations, slander and libel apart, I know of no known act of law that prohibits defined words. This allows all of us to use such words within the bounds of our consciences and our common sense. Offence by the usage of words is subjective and not against a known law.

So we have the right and freedom to our own speech, as and when we see fit, within our own bounds.

Remember Speakers Corner at Hyde Park in London. Anybody could (and as far as I know still does) stand on an orange box and say what they wanted without let or hindrence. You could call for the death penalty, you could call the queen a parasite, you could say that the legal system was full of corruption, or spout-off about immigration and repatriation, and many, many more things. And anybody could listen or even argue back, but no violence was allowed. I know this because I use to go there in the 60's. BANG THE BOMB and all that!

That was Freedom of Speech in practice, and nobody has rescinded that right!

If anybody feels that that right is not fair or should be withdrawn, I would invite them to write to their MP, Greg Pope for example or even Jack Straw. And ask for the Freedom of Speech to be denied by an Act of Parliament.

As a further proof of freedom of speech, the Bristol Evening Telegraph contains a weekly column "The Devils Advocate", by one - Mr. Beezelbub, and I can assure you that such words that have already been banned on this website are contained in his column. No actions against him or the paper have ever been made, or are likely to be made.

So not only have we freedom of speech, but we have practical examples of it in use !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top