MartyFunkhouser
Tony Galvin
The proof is going to be in the 3 year pudding but there is a level of humility and down to Earth thats endearing with Burnham
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
He definitely has that affability about him that few politicians manage. Ken Clarke is about the only other that comes to mind
He needs to get on with that promise of reversing Thatcherism/neo-liberalism if he's going to stand any hope though
Jurgen the German
George Hunt
Sometimes, yes, so I partially agree. But I do think you've oversimplified the issue.
Free speech isn't just about defending someone's right to say offensive or racist things. It's a much broader principle. It's about protecting everyone's ability to express opinions, criticise those in power, debate difficult issues, and challenge prevailing ideas without fearing state punishment.
That's why I'm uncomfortable with people being jailed over tweets. Unless speech crosses the line into criminal conduct—such as directly inciting violence or intentionally encouraging hatred in a way the law recognises—I don't think the government should be imprisoning people for expressing opinions, however unpopular or offensive they may be.
Free speech is important because the same powers used against views we dislike today can be used against views we support tomorrow. A society that allows open debate is more likely to expose bad ideas, correct mistakes, and hold governments accountable than one that relies on censorship or criminal sanctions. The answer to bad speech is often better speech, not more state intervention.
The broader question for me is why the political left no longer seems to treat free speech as a fundamental civil liberty in the way it once did. Historically, many on the left were among its strongest defenders because they recognised that the ability to challenge authority and express dissent protects minorities, campaigners, trade unions, journalists, and political opponents alike. It seems that, for some, preventing harmful speech has increasingly taken precedence over protecting free expression, and I'm not convinced that's a healthy shift for a liberal democracy.