Cyprus-Forum.com

[kalahari]

It is widely recognised that one of the underlying principles of any democracy is freedom of speech.

What is the situation though when strident bullying tactics force the quieter and more reasonable voices to either leave the debate or resort to equally brusque insults just to vent their frustration?

At what point should a moderator step in to moderate the freedom of speech?

In the British parliament we have a "speaker" whose role is to moderate what is being said. They have the authority to remove members of the house who are repeatedly disruptive to the debate, and there is a strict code which underlines what can and cannot be said.

This is ironic – a limit upon freedom of speech in what is often called the "father of parliaments". But nevertheless it is a principle that seesm to work.

So this is my topic for debate: How do we all feel about freedom of speech, and when, if ever, does freedom of speech for some actually prevent others from speaking freely?

Love, Kal

[Piratis]

The limit for freedom of speech can be drawn anywhere or nowhere.

Placing no restrictions at all could create a "jungle" environment. Placing a few restrictions could create something more organized but since what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is always subjective you run the risk of having something which is bias in some direction. Placing a lot of restrictions means that freedom of speech is only for those with beliefs within certain range (= there is no freedom of speech).

So I guess there is no ideal way to solve the problem.

[andri_cy]

Would you care to elaborate on what you are refering to?