I speak from a UK perspective here.
We have various laws which promote "Freedom" but we have other laws which restrict "freedom"
For example, (I stress I do not condone the BNP) the BNP have had political broadcast banned before crucial elections
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-304581/TV-channel-bans-BNP-election-broadcast.html
The argument being that any political party should have the right to air their points, the electorate have the freedom to "rubbish" them come the election. But the arguments should be able to be put forward for consideration by the electorate.
I do not condone any form of discrimination (save for anything anti MU but I am sure you have gathered that
) but is it right that laws are brought in, that restrict the publication or broadcast of any kind of view, whether it be a party or an individual that holds the view.
In many more ways our laws have restriction rather than freedom.
For instance the Government enjoy a large revenue from Cigarettes and are happy to take that revenue.
Yet smoking is blanket banned in many places. This impacts seriously on some businesses (for example pubs and clubs). Customers have a choice, surely the business owners should also have the choice to choose whether they are smoking or non smoking.
Or do you think that this type of issue is really something that a government in a free society should be legislating on.
The fact the Equality and Discrimination acts exist, actually say there is something wrong with society.
But on the other side of the coin (and I choose race, though there are other protected characteristics, as an example here) the relatively recent joining of the EU and its rapid expansion has opened our borders to lots of new communities. The act virtually dictates what we must "think", and certainly limits what can be said (Crime of Stiring Up racial Hatred) so the act actually protects certain groups of people.
As I watch the TV now there is a debate (since I started writing this so no prior influencing my question) about someone who is "Stiring Up" the Gay Rights Issues.
If anyone argues against his argument then they are "Homophobic"
Should a vicar be able to make his own mind up whether he wants to marry a gay couple or should legislation dictate that they have to.
Should a guest house owner (who may have religious beliefs that do not cater for this issue) be forced to accept a gay couple into there house, or should they have the choice.
(note my brother is gay, I personally have no issue, but I can understand those that do, I will say IN MY OPINION it should be a personal choice not a state "forced" issue) but this is an example of something where governments interfere, I do not want the thread bogged down with my example issues.
So the question is where should the line be drawn between a Free Country / Free Speech and the Nanny State, what boundaries should be set if any ?
We have various laws which promote "Freedom" but we have other laws which restrict "freedom"
For example, (I stress I do not condone the BNP) the BNP have had political broadcast banned before crucial elections
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-304581/TV-channel-bans-BNP-election-broadcast.html
The argument being that any political party should have the right to air their points, the electorate have the freedom to "rubbish" them come the election. But the arguments should be able to be put forward for consideration by the electorate.
I do not condone any form of discrimination (save for anything anti MU but I am sure you have gathered that
) but is it right that laws are brought in, that restrict the publication or broadcast of any kind of view, whether it be a party or an individual that holds the view.In many more ways our laws have restriction rather than freedom.
For instance the Government enjoy a large revenue from Cigarettes and are happy to take that revenue.
Yet smoking is blanket banned in many places. This impacts seriously on some businesses (for example pubs and clubs). Customers have a choice, surely the business owners should also have the choice to choose whether they are smoking or non smoking.
Or do you think that this type of issue is really something that a government in a free society should be legislating on.
The fact the Equality and Discrimination acts exist, actually say there is something wrong with society.
But on the other side of the coin (and I choose race, though there are other protected characteristics, as an example here) the relatively recent joining of the EU and its rapid expansion has opened our borders to lots of new communities. The act virtually dictates what we must "think", and certainly limits what can be said (Crime of Stiring Up racial Hatred) so the act actually protects certain groups of people.
As I watch the TV now there is a debate (since I started writing this so no prior influencing my question) about someone who is "Stiring Up" the Gay Rights Issues.
If anyone argues against his argument then they are "Homophobic"
Should a vicar be able to make his own mind up whether he wants to marry a gay couple or should legislation dictate that they have to.
Should a guest house owner (who may have religious beliefs that do not cater for this issue) be forced to accept a gay couple into there house, or should they have the choice.
(note my brother is gay, I personally have no issue, but I can understand those that do, I will say IN MY OPINION it should be a personal choice not a state "forced" issue) but this is an example of something where governments interfere, I do not want the thread bogged down with my example issues.
So the question is where should the line be drawn between a Free Country / Free Speech and the Nanny State, what boundaries should be set if any ?
