Which do you think is more important ?

[James]

Which do you think is more important:

 

Freedom of speech ?

 

The right to fair trial ?

 

The right to privacy ?

 

Explain.

[Guest]

All three imo.

[BenRW]

QUOTE (James @ Sep 12 2004, 12:05)

Which do you think is more important: Freedom of speech ? The right to fair trial ? The right to privacy ? Explain.

QUOTE

Freedom of speech ?

 

Quite important, but not entirely necessary as most of the time the general public are ignored. Even at election time when we get our say we don't select what we want, but the person with the most similar ideals to what we want, even if it means voting for some1 who is against something you feel strongly for

 

You also have to ask yourself how free to speak you actually are. In the UK we are relatively free in comparison with america, the so called 'land of the free'. IN america they have no ability to write a contraversial letter to a newspaper like the times and get it printed. instead it is censored and if it was highly controversial enough and you have been known to speak out about these ideas in the past then the CIA will monitor you. How free is that???

 

 

QUOTE

The right to fair trial ?

 

Even fair trials may not provide true justice. I know some1 who was on jury service once and there was a man on trial for causing accidental damage to a listed building through carelessness. All the evidence pointed that he was guilty as sin according to the charges against him, but the majority of the jury decided that even tho it did happen, and it was his fault, that he looked a nice chap and obviously didn't mean for it to happen and so he got off when he clearly was in the wrong, and the judge after the verdict even remarked on how even one juror could have let him off from the evidence, let alone the majority

 

and that is not even a major case like a murder or rape case. In rape cases one in ten accused get off scott free. And this is due to the way that the rapee (if that is the correct term) is termed to be. any mental illness in their past, whether it be depression or some other malady will be used against them to make them out to be mentally unwell in a way to provide false evidence, be actually 'crying wolf', or actually being the instigator in the relationship. Which is completely wrong imo. Rapists can go out and rape a girl and almost be guaranteed to get off before they even enter the courtroom (i do not mean serial rapists here as they have a lot more odds stacked against them)

 

 

QUOTE

The right to privacy ?

 

To me, the only time i get complete privacy is when i shut the curtains, shut the window, shut my bedroom door, switch the lights off and turn my music up

 

almost nowhere else i would feel completely private. Of course there are varying amounts of privacy, but i personally always struggle to even find somewhere to just have a phone conversation on my mobile without feeling that some1 may be listening in (and i don't mean in a government secret agency listening in way, but more just some1 in the street hearing a possibly personal conversation)

 

 

 

But as for the question i don't think i can answer that as i don't think any of them really exist as i have tried to outline above. But if i have to choose one of those 3 then it would have to be the right to a fair trial.

 

If i was accused of doing something i didn't do then i would expect to get off. and that is the simple answer. The other two are worth tuppence in comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please excuse the length of this, i can tell you that i am the most surprised at the length of it (normally its the women who tell me that )

 

if any of it doesn't make a lot of sence ignore it as i am fairly plastered atm, and have been up for over 20 hrs

 

and also please excuse any long delay in answering any posts right now as am busy all this week and only really came online to speak to one person. Damn the nets annoying

[betty boop]

I think I have to agree with what Benrostwood is saying actually.

 

Freedom of speech is there really such a thing? within reason but as Ben has pointed out it is not complete freedom we get.

 

Again fair trial is there such a thing also? I know it is innocent until proven guilty but is being proven guilty or innocent by a jury always right etc? Some would say the justice system is totally unfair and no faith at all.

 

Privacy again we do not have complete privacy. Data banks everywhere with information stored etc etc meaning obtaining information on people is relatively easy. The only things that are private for now are your thoughts and secrets.

 

So if I had to pick and chose one it would be hard, but I would go with fair trial I think.

Edited September 14, 2004 by betty boop

[smittenkitten288]

Fair trial !

 

Privacy - completely subjective - one persons intrusive behaviour is another persons norms.

 

Free speech is a subjective thing too, as we individually censor what we say on a daily basis - lets face it we would end up with a smack in the chops sometimes if we didnt. And as Ben says, most of the time it is ignored or frequently our true opinions are usually shared only with a small number of confidents or people we trust.

Thats not to say it isnt important - people have died for free speech and continue to do so in their millions across the world.

 

However, fair trial probably has the edge over everything. After all, if free speech was outlawed in some Orwellian nightmare, I would hope that we would man would have the right to fair trial - I think a fair trial is where the buck stops, and is perhaps the only thing where you could set standards which would satisfy the majority