Add Your Idea

Freedom of Speech Act [2010]

1 Comment 1st July 2010

 

That a bill be enacted enshrining peoples right to freedom of speech, free from political correctness and government interference.

 

Freedom of speech should have not caveats, no but for’s.

 

The Act would read:

 

All citizens have complete freedom of speech to express their views, opinions, be free to insult and be insulted, without hindrance or interference by the Government or the state. This freedom is absolute, except for express threats of violence.

 

This Act is intended to repeal any other legislation domestic, or otherwise that conflicts this it. It is not intended to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.  

Why does this matter?

 

Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of all rights, it is what millions of people over the centuries have fought for, any many, particularly in the last two world wars, have lost their lives for. Yet in this country, this great freedom has been steadily eroded over the last 10-20 years along with other basic civil rights. Citizens of the UK now do not have freedom of speech anymore.The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 being the biggest offender.

 

Threats of violence can never be tolerated, but other than this people should be free to say what they wish, with impunity regardless of whether what they say is distasteful or disagreeable. After all we are dealing with contemporary thought and who is to say who is right and who is wrong. Point being not the government or the courts.

 

In this country people have been charged, prosecuted and imprisoned for things that they have said that have no been threats of violence. Prosecuted for merely expressing an opinion. This is fascism!

 

I suggest that a bill be enacted enshrining peoples right to freedom of speech, free from political correctness and government interference.   

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


One Response to Freedom of Speech Act [2010]

  1. Harbinger says:

    “Threats of violence can never be tolerated, but other than this people should be free to say what they wish, with impunity regardless of whether what they say is distasteful or disagreeable.”

    This actually destroys your concept and belief in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech IS THE FREEDOM to speak freely 100% of the time. As soon as you restrict any part of speech and opinion you no longer have free speech.

    Ironically a threat of violence is free speech. A crime, in any lawful society is thus committed should he or she who threatened violence carries out the act.
    If I said to you: “go and stick your hand in the fire” should I be imprisoned for speaking freely and asking you to commit self harm, or would you be seen as the fool to do such a stupid thing?

    The age old argument is: “freedom of speech is NOT the freedom to shout fire in an open theatre” when it very much is.

    Those in society who seek to imprison and control us use your argument. Words are hot air, indentations on parchment in ink, pixels on a computer screen and nothing more.
    Physical violence, on the other hand, is completely different.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea