the best line in this movie is "when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short rout to chaos"
The simple idea is that so long as the opponent hasn't broken the rights of speech of anyone else,they haven't broken the rights of anyone at all. The breaking of laws to protect others should not be done until absolutely necessary.
@asa1342 See, for example, J.A. Guy, “Sir Thomas More & the Heretics,” History Today 30 (February 1980). There isn't much evidence that More whipped or mistreated prisoners during their detention, but he did approve of burning them alive.
Robert Bolt's script does not tell the whole truth, but that doesn't invalidate the truth inherent in this fine speech.
@KC101X : I can't really put it better that EdMcF1 did, but I would just add that this is really relevant in the debates about free speech. Some countries have succeeded in criminalizing various forms of hate speech (e.g., neo-Nazi and anti-homosexual), and the point is that this is short-sighted. You don't run a road through the law to get to an enemy because, intellectual consistency aside, you're going to need the protection of law if and when your enemies should ever come to power.
Japan, Italy, Germany: each state fell to fascism AFTER being a democracy. While I love Thomas Moore's speech, and I generally agree with it, the truth, history shows us, is that fascists exploit the protection of law until the point when they are powerful enough to deprive everyone else of it.
Absolute rights, by definition, must be applied to the point of absurdity, so I do not believe in an absolute right to free speech. All other rights would have to be sacrificed.
@parhhesia perhaps the problem is rather how laws were made, that the system, democracy, lead to the creation of unjust laws and the putting of evil people in charge of making laws.
never trust a political system that offers power to the devil. he will take it.
@KC101X He is saying that you cannot use your beliefs as a justification for dispensing with law. He is arguing that men have made laws for the protection of all, and one should not brush them aside to pursue your enemies even if you are right. If you do, one day, someone will come after you. It is better for all if the law stands, impersonal and objective, as a defence for all.
@dniete97 -- yes, indeed. The cult has managed to pick up one or two oddballs from outside over the years, but to all intents and purposes they are just a single family.
See also the current Abu Qatada row in the UK....
akicif 3 weeks ago
no one who is anyone of credibility seriously endorses torture. the debate is over what constitutes torture.
zackhanscom 1 month ago
the best line in this movie is "when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short rout to chaos"
kieghacat 1 month ago
damn... we need ron paul as president
Madfoot713 3 months ago
The simple idea is that so long as the opponent hasn't broken the rights of speech of anyone else,they haven't broken the rights of anyone at all. The breaking of laws to protect others should not be done until absolutely necessary.
MabusZero 7 months ago
The irony is that More persecuted and tortured so-called heretics, himself.
ZlatyTigre 8 months ago
@ZlatyTigre What, pray-tell, proof do you have of that?
asa1342 8 months ago
@asa1342 See, for example, J.A. Guy, “Sir Thomas More & the Heretics,” History Today 30 (February 1980). There isn't much evidence that More whipped or mistreated prisoners during their detention, but he did approve of burning them alive.
Robert Bolt's script does not tell the whole truth, but that doesn't invalidate the truth inherent in this fine speech.
roblyndon 8 months ago
Christopher Hitchens referenced this speech in a talk he gave about hate speech laws in Canada a few years back. Too lazy to link, though. ;)
dniete97 9 months ago 3
@KC101X : I can't really put it better that EdMcF1 did, but I would just add that this is really relevant in the debates about free speech. Some countries have succeeded in criminalizing various forms of hate speech (e.g., neo-Nazi and anti-homosexual), and the point is that this is short-sighted. You don't run a road through the law to get to an enemy because, intellectual consistency aside, you're going to need the protection of law if and when your enemies should ever come to power.
dniete97 9 months ago
@dniete97
Japan, Italy, Germany: each state fell to fascism AFTER being a democracy. While I love Thomas Moore's speech, and I generally agree with it, the truth, history shows us, is that fascists exploit the protection of law until the point when they are powerful enough to deprive everyone else of it.
Absolute rights, by definition, must be applied to the point of absurdity, so I do not believe in an absolute right to free speech. All other rights would have to be sacrificed.
parhhesia 6 months ago
@parhhesia perhaps the problem is rather how laws were made, that the system, democracy, lead to the creation of unjust laws and the putting of evil people in charge of making laws.
never trust a political system that offers power to the devil. he will take it.
malditonuke 5 months ago 3
@KC101X He is saying that you cannot use your beliefs as a justification for dispensing with law. He is arguing that men have made laws for the protection of all, and one should not brush them aside to pursue your enemies even if you are right. If you do, one day, someone will come after you. It is better for all if the law stands, impersonal and objective, as a defence for all.
EdMcF1 10 months ago 2
How relevant today.
waremi51 10 months ago 15
@dniete97 -- yes, indeed. The cult has managed to pick up one or two oddballs from outside over the years, but to all intents and purposes they are just a single family.
roblyndon 10 months ago
Can't help looking at this video in the light of the Snyder vs Phelps case. Glad the judges upheld the family's right to be wrong.
roblyndon 11 months ago
@roblyndon You mean, the protesters' right to be wrong, yeah?
dniete97 10 months ago 3
This speech is a simple way to test a politician for principles. If s/he poo-poos it, s/he is a budding tyrant and fraud. Many thanks for posting it.
EdMcF1 1 year ago 14
@EdMcF1 - I couldn't agree with you more.
dniete97 1 year ago
@EdMcF1
spot on
Iceman78985 10 months ago 2