Where to draw the line on free speech?

The line should never really be drawn on freedom of speech imo, from what I can see the only situations where laws/investigations should come into play is when the speech can be seen as containing serious threats (due to the possible forthcoming rightfully illegal violence/abuse that may be perpetrated by the person soon after he/she has said these threats).

Simply put having a law prohibiting people from saying potentially "offensive" things is quite a ridiculous and childish concept. Where does the term "offensive" start and stop? Obviously it'd be ludicrous to live in a world where parents would have to tell their children "Don't continue calling lil' Timmy who wears glasses a four-eyes, as you may be imprisoned when you're older, because he might be offended". Clearly it's the basic manners/morals taught to children about treating others as you'd like to be treated (equally) that should prevent the name-calling, not the future threat of punishment/charges by laws.

This would also be quite similar to a world where it would be put into law that "please" and "thank you" must be used when asking for something, because, who knows, it might gravely "offend" someone if you do not utter these words when speaking to them. Surely then we should have to be forced by law to be courteous and say these words as it might hurt somebody's feelings otherwise. This is the crux of the issue; is such an abstract concept as "causing offence" properly quantifiable? What words should be illegal to say and what words must it be illegal to "not" say in order to prevent causing offence? I'd argue that it is quite a wishy-washy term, that the degree of feeling offended varies from person to person and that any law banning "causing offence" could potentially leave us all eternally silent.

If we then condense the censoring solely into the supposedly most sensitive context (religious), which in reality should be one of the least sensitive subjects as the intrinsic nature of the person is not being criticised, it becomes an even more absurd assertion as anyone can make a religion about anything (eg "do not make illustrations of a flying spaghetti monster, as it mocks my faith"). This again means that soon enough, enough religions could be made so that it would be deemed offensive to say anything or draw anything at all. Is it that majority rules and that the major world religions or the ones who threaten violence should be most respected? Religion simply contains beliefs a person chooses (although are forced from childhood more often than not) to uphold. As has been mentioned religions are oftentimes ideologies and so they greatly influence the ideas, values, acts and behaviours of the people following them. For this reason they must be criticised and mocked as much as possible in order to stand up to scrutiny. This is similar to the important nature of regular satirical pieces and caricatures of politicians in order to prevent them and their decision making from being above criticism, as these are the people with the most power and so we have to let them know what we deem to be correct policies and incorrect policies.

Apologies for the length of this post.

A couple of centuries ago I'd have been pissed off at the idea that I was not at the centre of the cosmos. This guy Galileo came along. He had apparently observed phases of the Venus. Bastard offended a lot of people by his assertions. Made them feel little - and if he was right - rather stupid. He should really have known better to not offend people. He should really have given more careful consideration to the how people would react to his publications. He shouldn't have provoked them.

Then there was this absolute asshat named Charles Darwin. . .


Yeah, you should decide what constitutes acceptable free speech by who the subject matter offends. That'll definitely keep society in line and consistent.

Sattire aside. I don't ever want to live in such a society. I hate that you can barely used the word niggardly anymore without having some ignorant asshat PC turd accusing you of discriminating people based on race.

So, there you have it OP. If you use the word niggardly in a debate you'll likely offend a certain proportion of the audience. Does that mean you shouldn't ever use the word? More to the point, offence should never be the delimiter of freedom.

marienbad wrote: »

Who said anything about limiting the discussion to Islam ?

Well the opening post was using Islam as a starting point for a discussion on free speech, and I thought you were going to take it right back to basics when you said let's get specific... but then you introduced a whole different scenario. Confused the hell out of me anyway!

Why don't you think it was right to ban such abortion information ? After all it was deeply offensive and contrary to the beliefs of a substantial percentage of the population here ?

Because the intent was not to offend people, but to inform people. Was the intention of CH to offend, or to inform?

I'm all for informing people, not so much for purposefully offending people.

Put it this way - which do you think is a more effective strategy - giving people the information and letting them make up their own minds, or straight out talking over them and telling them that they're wrong, and they should know that they're wrong, and if they are offended by you telling them that they're wrong, well, that's their problem.

I'm saying that it isn't their problem. They were quite happy as they were until you decided that you were going to take it upon yourself to tell them they are wrong. Who's the one with the problem? You are, you have a problem with them being wrong.

They had no problem until you appeared to mock and criticise them for being wrong. Would you stand for that? You wouldn't, so why do you expect that anyone else should?

Turtwig wrote: »

offence should never be the delimiter of freedom.

This sentence is a rather complex one. The spirit of it was to conclude the point in my post. However, this greatly simplified things.

Everyone has a right to their own good name. You infringe that right and you can be sued for defamation. In this regard, you are also personally offending this person. Who wouldn't be insulted at the implication of being a pedophile? In the context of the thread discussion would anyone oppose limiting free speech on the grounds of calling someone a pedophile?

What if someone stated Mohammed was a pedophile? That's no longer defamation. So why it acceptable and the personal insult isn't? The lazy answer would be that one is a fictional character. But let's assume Mohammed is real. Is it ok to state he was a pedophile? My argument is that the case against should be allowed be to made - just like a journalist can toe the line on libel laws by criticising a company or individual with substantive evidence and/or argument. The line I absolutely draw in the sand is the idea of the case being absolutely prohibited because people are offended by the claim.

Of course, in practice deciding what constitutes a substantive case is subjective and open to abuse. That's why I think any implementation of free speech should be heavily biased towards recognising offence as the last resort. If there's artistic or academic merit to something it should at the worst carry disclaimers and warnings before being viewed. It should never be banned outright.

Years ago, the Catholic Church exerted huge control in Ireland.

They controlled schools - how could anyone be anything other than Catholic if they never heard of any other religion?

There was basically environmental brainwashing with little or no outside messages - little or no radio, tv, internet, easy access to newspapers.

To question the Church would have met with anger etc. from the brainwashed faithful.

People were basically brainwashed, ignorant, lacking access to the truth.

They needed the status quo questioned though they didn't realise it and would have rallied against the very thing they needed to get to the truth about the church.

Free Speech was necessary. People should have been able to say the truth about the church at a time when that would have been reacted to in a very bad way.

I think the concept of people simply believing everything they are told without any real proof or debate is something that is not insulting but an intelligent debate.

I wrote more, then deleted it. I feared someone complaining. When you can't give a logical intelligent opinion without wondering is it ok? will someone take offence? it is getting ridiculous. This is the problem with taking offence. You can take offence to anything if you want to, even statements where no offence is intended.

Free speech eventually leads to Free minds.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

My argument is simple. Restrictions should be in place for incitement to hatred, overt racism and so forth. This isn't an arbitrary opinion, but something all ordinary decent people would agree with.

That's fine, we all agree racism is bad, I should hope.

The question I was specifically addressing concerned the publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. I believe lampooning Mohammed should be permitted, or even welcomed, in the same way lampooning every other figure in history is accepted. There should be no exceptions to this.

No exceptions. Really?

Would it be acceptable to lampoon Martin Luther King, or any other black history figure. What if this lampooning was racist in nature.
If black people were outraged, are their actions are their responsibility also? Is it pandering to black sensitivities to condemn this sort of stuff.

I'd assume that the answer to all of this is no, its not acceptable. And most people would feel like that. But why?
Why is it unacceptable to mock people over the colour of their skin, yet, their personal beliefs are fair game - even though their belief are as much an identify as race - even though mocking beliefs could equally be considered as incitement to hatred. It is still xenophobia just as much as racism.
"Because ideology is a choice" isn't a good enough answer either. Judaism is equally a choice, that doesn't make the holocaust more acceptable than genocide in Africa.
If Buddhists, for example, were routinely mocked, abused everywhere they go, discriminated against for no reason other than their beliefs, all without the slightest retaliation. Only an idiot would call that acceptable. Therefore, the inherent idea that religion is fair game for all sorts of abuse is fundamentally wrong.

Of course, critical discussion of any belief system is acceptable. And religious people would be able to handle that and engage in discussion. But the CH cartoon wasn't critical discussion, it was mocking - lets not pretend otherwise. And I’m not saying, that jokes can’t ever been made. Of course they can. But there’s a line between joking, and abuse. A line between being driven by humour, and hate.
Now of course the CH incident was an over the top reaction. The terrorists should be condemned for it, in the over all picture that's the greater wrong here. But I think that's the underlying issue here, most people don't have an issue with mocking Islam, or other religions because of the situation Islamic extremist have created. Not because its fair, or acceptable, but simply because of everything that happened, people don't care anymore.

The line has moved.

Mellor wrote: »

Judaism is equally a choice, that doesn't make the holocaust more acceptable than genocide in Africa.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

Mellor wrote: »

Those example are quietly clearly joking.
To qualify as racist, it would have to something where its not necessarily a joke. For example, an article claiming that all blacks are lazy criminals. And that they should have remained slaves as in the end we had to lock them all up anyway.

Or an article that is openly and obvious being abusive towards a racial group.

FWIW, I do believe CH was a joke, and intended as such. I'm just pointing out that if we are trying to set the boundaries of free speech. That beliefs aren't a fair game simply because its a choice.

Yes, they are jokes. Hence, the appropriate use of 'lampoon'; making fun of, or satirizing, a well-known person or group, with humorous intent. You seem to be suggesting malicious use of the term, which I'm not sure makes sense in this context.

So, if beliefs aren't fair game (and I believe they are, your position offends me:pac:) than can I ask what IS fair game for satire?

Mellor wrote: »

Lampoon means to publicly criticize by using ridicule, satire, etc - that's it, there's no restriction the on intent. The intent might be pure humour, or there could be another motive.

So you are positing the existence of malicious lampooning? Could you give some examples, please?

Regardless of the exactly meaning, you are missing the point completely. I never said that beliefs weren't fair game for satire.
I'm trying to point out that religious beliefs, are no different to race or sex or anything else in this regard. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say whatever you like. The same boundaries of common sense and decency apply to all of them equally.

Beliefs are very different to sex or race. In my forty-odd years I have had numerous beliefs of different hues; my ethnicity and gender have not changed. I'd say that we have a duty to challenge beliefs, in a way that makes absolutely no sense when talking about race or gender (e.g. "Is it right to make fun of MLK?" vs. "Is it right to be male?"). If you don't like having your beliefs challenged, fine; change the channel, go for a walk, take up yoga. Note, though, that you may still be mocked for that, too.

I'd agree, though, that free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you like, whenever you like (I demand the right to shout 'fire!' in a crowded movie theatre!); there is a corresponding responsibility to use it wisely. How that is decided, of course, is another question.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that as there is no such right as the 'right' to be offended, but there are restrictions placed upon the right to freedom of speech which place responsibility upon a person to be conscious of how they express themselves so as not to cause offence to other people.

The right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean the right to purposely offend people. Why is it offensive to you to suggest that you should be conscious of how you exercise your rights?

Do you believe that everyone should have the same right as you to say whatever they like to whoever they like, and if that person is offended, well, they'll just have to suck it up?

You soon run into all sorts of problems when people say things that you are bound to find offensive, as the sort of people who thrive on that sort of freedom are simply people who have no consideration for other people besides themselves. Is that the sort of society you would prefer to live in?

I wouldn't.

Again you are just saying platitudes without even any consistency . Your whole argument hinges on the notion of

''a person to be conscious of how they express themselves so as not to cause offence to other people.''

Can you not see just how unworkable this is ? Who decides what causes offence ?

You yourself showed no consistency in your earlier post. You agreed that abortion information should not be banned even though it offended a large section of our society and yet you took steps to ban graphic pro life
posters ?

So does anyone and everyone on a walk down town say yeah that poster is ok but that one must come down ?

Ridiculous.

pauldla wrote: »

So you are positing the existence of malicious lampooning? Could you give some examples, please?



Beliefs are very different to sex or race. In my forty-odd years I have had numerous beliefs of different hues; my ethnicity and gender have not changed. I'd say that we have a duty to challenge beliefs, in a way that makes absolutely no sense when talking about race or gender (e.g. "Is it right to make fun of MLK?" vs. "Is it right to be male?"). If you don't like having your beliefs challenged, fine; change the channel, go for a walk, take up yoga. Note, though, that you may still be mocked for that, too.

I don't kniw of you are genuinely failing to grasp a simple point. Or being purposely obtuse in order to argue. I never mentioned challenging.

Any

Either way there's not much point in

As regards Free Speech.

I dont know whether its been mentioned yet but there was a famous first ammendmant (Freedom of Speech) case in the US which was decided by the Supreme Court, in which one of the Judges proposed the "test" of "shouting fire in a crowded theater":

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You soon run into all sorts of problems when people say things that you are bound to find offensive, as the sort of people who thrive on that sort of freedom are simply people who have no consideration for other people besides themselves. Is that the sort of society you would prefer to live in?

If you mean a society where stand up comedy isnt illegal then yes, thats my kind of society.

Mellor wrote: »

I don't kniw of you are genuinely failing to grasp a simple point. Or being purposely obtuse in order to argue. I never mentioned challenging.

Any

Either way there's not much point in

Well we seem to be getting hung up on the use of lampoon (or I seem to be, anyway). I'm having trouble thinking of examples of racist lampoons, as mentioned by you in #43. IMO once a lampoon starts overtly using racism to deliver its sting, it's no longer a lampoon.

Humour challenges belief; it's very useful that way. When used well, it can show the Emperor to be absolutely bollock naked. In the nip. Not a stitch. Which, I suppose, is the reason why satirists sometimes lead short, uncomfortably pointy lives.

marienbad wrote: »

Again you are just saying platitudes without even any consistency . Your whole argument hinges on the notion of

''a person to be conscious of how they express themselves so as not to cause offence to other people.''

Can you not see just how unworkable this is ? Who decides what causes offence ?

But it's already working? There already ARE restrictions upon freedom of speech, and people have a responsibility to adhere to those restrictions.

Who decides what causes offence? General consensus I suppose, depends entirely on your audience. In the same way as there's no such thing as free speech on Boards, there are infractions handed out to those who post something that is generally considered by it's audience to be offensive (and it has to be said that this forum to it's credit is more lenient than most, but that's probably due to the standard of civility in here too as opposed to one of the more high traffic contentious forums like soccer for instance).

You yourself showed no consistency in your earlier post. You agreed that abortion information should not be banned even though it offended a large section of our society and yet you took steps to ban graphic pro life
posters ?

Abortion information was intended to inform, the prolife posters were simply intended to be offensive.

So does anyone and everyone on a walk down town say yeah that poster is ok but that one must come down ?

Ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you present a situation where there are only two extreme options and no possibility of people being able to use their best judgment or behave in a reasonable manner.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Of course it does.

Unlimited freedom of speech does that. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech.

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you mean a society where stand up comedy isnt illegal then yes, thats my kind of society.

Nobody suggested such a dystopian alternative. Free speech is not an "all or nothing" concept.