Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[Pilchardman]

Do you think it would be better if people were allowed to openly vent racist abuse against individuals

Allowed by whom?

[Mr Pee]

BTW is anyone on this thread planning to buy Clarkson's new book or CD? Just asking.

Well, I didn't know about the CD- sounds intriguing- but the DVD is certainly on my Christmas List. And I'll probably buy the book in the New Year. They'll both be great entertainment I'm sure!!!

(And I have the Top Gear Calendar on the study wall above me as I type this!!)

[french frank]

But is "I'm offended" sufficient argument to limit free speech?

This suggests a misunderstanding of the 'right to freedom of speech'. It simply means that you are free, in general, to state an honest opinion without fear of being prosecuted (or disappearing without trace). And it assumes that what you say does not contravene any existing law.

What it is not is the right to state your honest opinion anywhere, at any time, regardless of local rules or matters of organisational discipline, and not get your comeuppance. If an Army private publicly states his honest opinion of his sergeant he may be disciplined. If an employee states his opinion of a superior, he could be sacked. If anyone expresses opinions here which I consider have gone well beyond the bounds of decency and acceptability, I have the right to delete it and close their account. That is not curtailing their general right to freedom of speech which allows them to express their views somewhere in this country without fear of judicial pursuit.

The BBC felt it had the right to sack a One Show presenter who was overheard, off air, passing a comment that the eavesdropper thought offensive and that the employers were informed of. That seems much more sinister to me than limiting the right of any idiot to state their opinion to the cameras and reach millions of people.

[MrGongGong]

What puzzles me even more
is exactly what kind of "Studying" goes on in MrP's "Study"

[Lateralthinking1]

Clarkson. I haven't got anything against people with money and some give and take.

But it is fairly obvious really. Behind the laddishness he is actually one of the most pompous individuals on TV. Dissing almost everyone who is not very like him, money differences aside. In reality only as blokey as anyone can be with a remote mansion and a "keep out" sign, ie not blokey at all. Oxbridge educated. He's a prig in matey clothing. Very much a modern day Lord of the Manor. A con artist in other words.

Hammond's life of course was saved by the NHS. He has remained wimpily silent.

[Pilchardman]

This suggests a misunderstanding of the 'right to freedom of speech'.

With respect, your post suggests a misunderstanding of the word "sufficient".

[scottycelt]

Who/what are we talking about now? I've lost track.

Is Clarkson a Tory caricature I'd be happy never to encounter ever again? Yes, of course. But is "I'm offended" sufficient argument to limit free speech? Certainly not. Not in that case, and not in any case. Remember the atheist bus adverts? ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.") Hundreds of religious people complained that they were "offended". That was enough, they thought, to have the adverts banned. Well it isn't.

I return temporarily with no little trepidation ...

'Hundreds of religious people' weren't awfully 'offended' by these adverts, they simply challenged it on the grounds of substantiation and truthfulness, and who can blame them as they are constantly themselves challenged in a similar manner by non-believers?

Let's face it, it was a quite absurd 'advert' if only for the simple reason that some atheists can be as miserable as 'sin' (sorry!), whilst many believers are happy and enjoy life to the full, and, of course, vice-versa can also indeed be the case.

Alas, Professor Dawkins & Co have never since claimed it was all a big joke.

Sorry, I digress shamefully ...

[french frank]

With respect, your post suggests a misunderstanding of the word "sufficient".

Not really, because 'freedom of speech' is not the issue at all. Not 1% or 99%. Not sufficient or insufficient.

[Pilchardman]

Not really, because 'freedom of speech' is not the issue at all. Not 1% or 99%. Not sufficient or insufficient.

It isn't 'sufficient freedom of speech' that I was talking about. What I said was that "I'm offended" is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech. I gave an example. Here's another: many people are offended by homosexuality. Should people be banned from mentioning homosexuality because someone is offended? No, because it isn't sufficient reason.

My comments were made in response to this notion that if people are offended, then that's all that is required for something to be banned (from the BBC).

(How you run this board is entirely up to you, incidentally. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's your front room, as it were. You don't have to put up with anything you find troublesome. That's quite different from the wider question of what we as a society think is meant by freedom of speech, and what is sufficient reason for its being curtailed).

[Pilchardman]

and who can blame them as they are constantly themselves challenged in a similar manner by non-believers?

Any more than atheists are told by some believers that we are damned? I could say I find that offensive, but I actually think religious people should have the right to say what they believe. Just so long as they accept that with that right comes the possibility that others will disagree.

(As it happens, I was not a supporter of the bus campaign. I thought the slogan banal and idiotic).

[Mr Pee]

Hammond's life of course was saved by the NHS. He has remained wimpily silent.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Richard Hammond. That he should wander around with a big banner praising the NHS 24/7?

If you were to read his own account of the accident and its aftermath-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Edge-My-Story-Richard-Hammond/dp/0753824043/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322927020&sr=1-1

you would most certainly find plenty of praise for the care he received whilst he recovered. It's there in black and white, on pages 307-308. He lists,and thanks, by name, every doctor, nurse, and therapist at each of the three hospitals where he was treated. Even the housekeeping, reception and domestic staff get a mention.

You really shouldn't be so dismissive unless you know the facts.

[french frank]

It isn't 'sufficient freedom of speech' that I was talking about. What I said was that "I'm offended" is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech. I gave an example. Here's another: many people are offended by homosexuality. Should people be banned from mentioning homosexuality because someone is offended? No, because it isn't sufficient reason.

No, but 'banning' homosexuality (i.e. making it illegal) would be a judicial matter. Restricting what somone says on a BBC programme is a matter for the BBC, not the law.

If I ask to BBC to give me a platform to say that Radio 3 is being trashed, that Roger Wright is responsible, that this is a disgrace, that it shouldn't be allowed and it offends me to see culture so debased, and that I want to say so on the One Show; and if the BBC says, Sorry, no you can't. And if you want a reason it's because Radio 3 is a service provided by the BBC and Roger Wright is a senior employee and we don't provide a platform for every Tom, Dick and Harry to sound off about such things, that is not, in any legal sense, limiting my freedom of speech: it is a perfectly reasonable response. It just means I must go elsewhere to express my views (which I caricature above, btw ).

In terms of the 'God probably doesn't exist' adverts, it was a matter for (I assume) TfL who accepted them; and the ASA supported the decision. That's fine. But it wouldn't mean the BBC would be in any sense obliged to allow Dawkins on the One Show to propagate the view as a matter of freedom of speech.

Me, I'm cynical . I think the BBC courts controversy and that it invites populist opinions on populist programmes.

Didn't see the programme, haven't looked at the vid clips, ain't too concerned about it, think Clarkson is an oaf and look forward to him going over the top so that the BBC will have to, regretfully, let him go. Best I can do.

[scottycelt]

Any more than atheists are told by some believers that we are damned? I could say I find that offensive, but I actually think religious people should have the right to say what they believe. Just so long as they accept that with that right comes the possibility that others will disagree.

(As it happens, I was not a supporter of the bus campaign. I thought the slogan banal and idiotic).

I agree completely ... and would also add that the bus ad amused and in no way offended me ... anyway, off-topic!

[Pilchardman]

that is not, in any legal sense, limiting my freedom of speech

I didn't mention it being in a legal sense. Indeed at one point (post 106) I tried to establish by whom we were talking about verbal abuse being allowed.

You've also picked up my example about homosexuality incorrectly. I was supposing a ban on talking about homosexuality, not a ban on homosexuality. (Which would be impossible). And I didn't mean by that any legislative process, but an editorial process.

I'm not sure what your point is about Dawkins. I'm not arguing that the BBC should be obliged to invite anyone onto the One Show.

[Pilchardman]

It's not often I can say that I agree with Marina Hyde in the Guardian, so get your screen shots ready, because today I agree with Marina Hyde in the Guardian, pretty much.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/02/jeremy-clarkson-rebel-cause-dvds