Where to draw the line on free speech?

wretcheddomain

We've all come across the debate on the limitations of free speech at some point, not least because of punctuating events such as that which transpired at Charlie Hebdo.

The question is, though, where should the line be drawn?

Should it be considered an offence, for example, to incite the bulbous emotional Islamist reaction, in full knowledge such an act may lead to social unrest - or possibly death.

Or, should we place blame with Muslims for reacting disproportionately to what they deem to be a violation of their religious sensitivities.

My own view would be that free speech is a right - though limited in cases of defamation, for example - that extends only to the critique and ridicule of ideas as opposed to the critique and ridicule of people, such as what might occur with racism.

I believe it's only through drawing this most important dichotomy can the debate be established along its true lines. To assume that lampooning a religious prophet is the moral equivalent of lampooning the individual who reveres said prophet, is a dangerous - and false - premise to accept.

pH

wretcheddomain wrote: »

My own view would be that free speech is a right - though limited in cases of defamation, for example - that extends only to the critique and ridicule of ideas as opposed to the critique and ridicule of people, such as what might occur with racism.

So basically free speech for you aligns exactly with the things you believe are right. Ain't that handy dandy - but to be fair most people's view on free speech is exactly the same.

The more interesting question is what speech do you absolutely disagree with and detest, yet would fight vigorously for the right for others to utter it.

Or put it another way, what things do *you* believe in and want to say (or have said) but think that you (or others) shouldn't have the right to say them.

Otherwise it all ends up in a tedious "free speech is *exactly* what I believe should be said because reasons"

wretcheddomain

pH wrote: »

So basically free speech for you aligns exactly with the things you believe are right. Ain't that handy dandy - but to be fair most people's view on free speech is exactly the same.

The more interesting question is what speech do you absolutely disagree with and detest, yet would fight vigorously for the right for others to utter it.

Or put it another way, what things do *you* believe in and want to say (or have said) but think that you (or others) shouldn't have the right to say them.

Otherwise it all ends up in a tedious "free speech is *exactly* what I believe should be said because reasons"

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.

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.

This is a matter of consistency rather than personal taste. If Muslims outrage at the sight of such a publication, their actions are their responsibility - not that of the publication who decided to produce the images. Again, this is consistency. To behave otherwise would be to pander to Muslim sensitivities and that, as I'm sure most of us would agree, is a bad thing all round.

One eyed Jack

wretcheddomain wrote: »

This is a matter of consistency rather than personal taste. If Muslims outrage at the sight of such a publication, their actions are their responsibility - not that of the publication who decided to produce the images. Again, this is consistency. To behave otherwise would be to pander to Muslim sensitivities and that, as I'm sure most of us would agree, is a bad thing all round.

Yeah, the problem with that view however, is that some people tend to take any kind of commentary upon their religious beliefs, satire or otherwise, personally. They don't apply the same arbitrary lines as you do, and for them, when they perceive your comments to be insulting to them personally, they tend to get a bit prickly about it.

Just like Muslims actions are their responsibility, so too are the actions of the people who choose to offend them. CH knew their actions in publishing the images would offend Muslims, and they took a risk in doing so. They suffered the consequences of taking that risk.

The right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech only holds any true value if it is balanced with a responsibility to respect the opinions and beliefs of others and is used in a way that is not intended to disrespect or humiliate a section of society. Given that 20% of France identify as Muslim, that's one hell of a sleeping bear to be poking with a very sharp stick.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are fantastic tools, but not when those tools are simply used to abuse people. That's simply asking for trouble from people who don't particularly give a shìt about Western idealism.

Zamboni

Freedom of speech is an abused term.
I just read a thread in AH where two posters wanted "a rim Job from Mary Lou" and "mary O'Rourke for a face sitting session".
This immature brain dead vulgarity is visible on a place accessible by young people with no warnings about adult content.
This should not be allowed.
I believe in free speech with a large dose of cop on.

magicbastarder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are fantastic tools, but not when those tools are simply used to abuse people. That's simply asking for trouble from people who don't particularly give a shìt about Western idealism.

can you clarify what conclusion you're drawing? because it reads like you're saying freedom of speech is not all it's cracked up to be because of murderous criminals?

One eyed Jack

magicbastarder wrote: »

can you clarify what conclusion you're drawing? because it reads like you're saying freedom of speech is not all it's cracked up to be because of murderous criminals?

Well it's rather naive not to be cognisant of the fact that there are people out there who are going to do the whole murder thing if you think you have the right to say what you like and aren't mindful of the possible consequences for doing so.

I'm not saying that the people who want to murder you are right, I'm simply saying that they do exist, and so when Stephen Fry poses the question "So what?", well, that's why not.

Links234

Zamboni wrote: »

Freedom of speech is an abused term.
I just read a thread in AH where two posters wanted "a rim Job from Mary Lou" and "mary O'Rourke for a face sitting session".
This immature brain dead vulgarity is visible on a place accessible by young people with no warnings about adult content.
This should not be allowed.
I believe in free speech with a large dose of cop on.

But that's not free speech, free speech is about the government limiting what you can and can't say, not what a private website allows it's userbase to say. Like lets say I have a newpaper, I don't have to publish an article from someone saying he wants a "rim job from Mary Lou" or whatever else, and that's not infringing on his freedom of speech because I'm not stopping him from saying it, I'm just not publishing it.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, the problem with that view however, is that some people tend to take any kind of commentary upon their religious beliefs, satire or otherwise, personally.

That's their problem, especially if the rather precious and nebulous concept of 'offence' is being used to justify illegal actions.

Just like Muslims actions are their responsibility, so too are the actions of the people who choose to offend them. CH knew their actions in publishing the images would offend Muslims, and they took a risk in doing so. They suffered the consequences of taking that risk.

You are simply indulging in victim blaming here.

The right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech only holds any true value if it is balanced with a responsibility to respect the opinions and beliefs of others and is used in a way that is not intended to disrespect or humiliate a section of society.

One is under no obligation whatsoever to respect opinions and beliefs, just the right of other people to hold opinions and beliefs.
All religious beliefs are nonsense and often damaging, exploitative nonsense at that - why should I be forced to 'respect' them and what does that actually mean? If I refuse to accept that allah is my god am I disrespecting islam - some say yes.

Equally, large swathes of opinion are utter nonsense and not deserving of any respect whatsoever.
Creationists, flat earthers, and other assorted loons would love to be able to silence people who don't 'respect' their demonstrably loony opinions.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's their problem, especially if the rather precious and nebulous concept of 'offence' is being used to justify illegal actions.

It's not just their problem though. It is everyone's responsibility that they not use the equally nebulous concept of 'free speech' to justify humiliating people. Their way of solving problems is quite efficient, and very effective, Western laws be damned.

You are simply indulging in victim blaming here.

An utterly meaningless phrase - Muslims were the victims of CH's humiliation, they reacted, rendering CH the victims of their own making. What you call victim blaming, I call objectivity.

One is under no obligation whatsoever to respect opinions and beliefs, just the right of other people to hold opinions and beliefs.
All religious beliefs are nonsense and often damaging, exploitative nonsense at that - why should I be forced to 'respect' them and what does that actually mean? If I refuse to accept that allah is my god am I disrespecting islam - some say yes.

You're not being forced to respect anything, but you have no right to play the victim when other people who don't feel they should have to respect your opinion either will suggest that Western idealism about free speech is an abomination.

If you want to argue that you aren't disrespecting Islam, then you can hardly cry foul when you think Muslims are disrespectful of Western idealism.

Equally, large swathes of opinion are utter nonsense and not deserving of any respect whatsoever.
Creationists, flat earthers, and other assorted loons would love to be able to silence people who don't 'respect' their demonstrably loony opinions.

And where does that attitude get anyone? Why do you think your opinion is any more worthy of respect than theirs?

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not just their problem though. It is everyone's responsibility that they not use the equally nebulous concept of 'free speech' to justify humiliating people. Their way of solving problems is quite efficient, and very effective, Western laws be damned.





An utterly meaningless phrase - Muslims were the victims of CH's humiliation, they reacted, rendering CH the victims of their own making. What you call victim blaming, I call objectivity.





You're not being forced to respect anything, but you have no right to play the victim when other people who don't feel they should have to respect your opinion either will suggest that Western idealism about free speech is an abomination.

If you want to argue that you aren't disrespecting Islam, then you can hardly cry foul when you think Muslims are disrespectful of Western idealism.





And where does that attitude get anyone? Why do you think your opinion is any more worthy of respect than theirs?

That means we have no free speech at all then. Someone somewhere will always be offended . And no one has a right not to be offended .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

That means we have no free speech at all then. Someone somewhere will always be offended . And no one has a right not to be offended .

Of course everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they also have a responsibility to not turn free speech and freedom of expression into a weapon to consciously and knowingly humiliate people.

If a person feels they have a right to ignore their responsibility towards other people, then their right to freedom of speech and expression is effectively rendered meaningless by themselves.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they also have a responsibility to not turn free speech and freedom of expression into a weapon to consciously and knowingly humiliate people.

If a person feels they have a right to ignore their responsibility towards other people, then their right to freedom of speech and expression is effectively rendered meaningless by themselves.

They have no such responsibility, it is an unworkable notion. For example lets pretend for a minute this forum was available in the 1970's , the Catholic Church would have most threads shut down every day and would censure most posters if they could.

Do you want to go back to that ? I don't . Time for the Islamic religion to grow up and accept it is a shared world.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

They have no such responsibility, it is an unworkable notion.

Is it?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility

For example lets pretend for a minute this forum was available in the 1970's , the Catholic Church would have most threads shut down every day and would censure most posters if they could.

Do you want to go back to that ? I don't . Time for the Islamic religion to grow up and accept it is a shared world.

Of course I don't want to go back to that, but I also don't want to go to the other extreme of people feeling they can say what they like and humiliate people with no regard for those people who do not share their opinions. Free speech is a privilege which becomes meaningless when it is taken for granted.

I think it's time that people in the West grew up and realised that indeed it IS a shared world, and that if they expect Islam to respect their standards, then they too have a responsibility to respect the standards of Islam.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility





Of course I don't want to go back to that, but I also don't want to go to the other extreme of people feeling they can say what they like and humiliate people with no regard for those people who do not share their opinions. Free speech is a privilege which becomes meaningless when it is taken for granted.

I think it's time that people in the West grew up and realised that indeed it IS a shared world, and that if they expect Islam to respect their standards, then they too have a responsibility to respect the standards of Islam.

No you have got this **** about face , free speech and expression is a right and not a privilege . And one that over a couple of millennia incredible people have given their lives and/or their freedom to win for us and to safeguard , from Boethius to Galileo to Tom Paine to the White Rose group and right up to Chelsea Manning,Edward Snowden and the CH cartoonists .

It never fails to astonish how rights won at so costly a price are so easily dispensed with.

mohawk

Most if not all of us have been offended at some point and yet somehow refrained from killing people over it. An offensive magazine or newspaper can be avoided by not buying it.

Free speech is a minefield really. There are people who say things I would consider racist, sexist, homophobic etc but they do not see anything wrong with what they said.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

No you have got this **** about face , free speech and expression is a right and not a privilege . And one that over a couple of millennia incredible people have given their lives and/or their freedom to win for us and to safeguard , from Boethius to Galileo to Tom Paine to the White Rose group and right up to Chelsea Manning,Edward Snowden and the CH cartoonists .

What it is, is a fundamental human right conferred by Western idealism. Not every human being has that right, and therefore that makes it a privilege. It's a privilege that as you quite rightly point out throughout history people have fought and died for, so when I see the likes of CH use that right to humiliate people, I can understand why people would retaliate.

I'm not saying that the way those people retaliate is justifiable, it's not, but it IS understandable.

Whether I think it is justifiable or not though, is me applying Western standards to people who don't particularly care about adhering to Western standards.

In a shared world, where peace and prosperity among humanity is the ultimate intended objective, then is it not incumbent upon those who profess this ideology to practice what they preach?

Knowingly and purposely offending people should never be acceptable in a society which considers itself civilised, in a society where we wish to have other people adopt our ideology.

It never fails to astonish how rights won at so costly a price are so easily dispensed with.

Me either tbh, it's as though people all too often tend to forget how those rights they so easily take for granted were fought for by people who died so that they could have the privilege to express themselves, and what's the first thing they do with it? Well they go out of their way to humiliate other people of course.

evo2000

wretcheddomain wrote: »

We've all come across the debate on the limitations of free speech at some point, not least because of punctuating events such as that which transpired at Charlie Hebdo.

The question is, though, where should the line be drawn?

Should it be considered an offence, for example, to incite the bulbous emotional Islamist reaction, in full knowledge such an act may lead to social unrest - or possibly death.

Or, should we place blame with Muslims for reacting disproportionately to what they deem to be a violation of their religious sensitivities.

My own view would be that free speech is a right - though limited in cases of defamation, for example - that extends only to the critique and ridicule of ideas as opposed to the critique and ridicule of people, such as what might occur with racism.

I believe it's only through drawing this most important dichotomy can the debate be established along its true lines. To assume that lampooning a religious prophet is the moral equivalent of lampooning the individual who reveres said prophet, is a dangerous - and false - premise to accept.

Theres no such thing as Free speech but... you either have freedom of speech or you dont theres no middle ground,

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What it is, is a fundamental human right conferred by Western idealism. Not every human being has that right, and therefore that makes it a privilege. It's a privilege that as you quite rightly point out throughout history people have fought and died for, so when I see the likes of CH use that right to humiliate people, I can understand why people would retaliate.

I'm not saying that the way those people retaliate is justifiable, it's not, but it IS understandable.

Whether I think it is justifiable or not though, is me applying Western standards to people who don't particularly care about adhering to Western standards.

In a shared world, where peace and prosperity among humanity is the ultimate intended objective, then is it not incumbent upon those who profess this ideology to practice what they preach?

Knowingly and purposely offending people should never be acceptable in a society which considers itself civilised, in a society where we wish to have other people adopt our ideology.





Me either tbh, it's as though people all too often tend to forget how those rights they so easily take for granted were fought for by people who died so that they could have the privilege to express themselves, and what's the first thing they do with it? Well they go out of their way to humiliate other people of course.

This is meaningless motherhood and apple pie stuff, you are not facing any of the issues raised by your own position.

All you are saying is play nice. No thank you

jungleman

As far as I'm concerned, free speech is applicable everywhere in any context unless it is libelous. The Speaker's wife Sally Bercow for instance, she overstepped the mark with that Lord McAlpine tweet. That wasn't free speech, that was libelous and plain malicious. That's when the whole "I have the right to say whatever I want" argument dies.

As far as Islam goes, it is an ideology. It's open to criticism. I personally think that with Scientology, anyone who is a member of that cult is insane. Lot's of people think and say that. But when it comes to critiquing Islam, people throw out the line "that's racist". No it's not, Islam is not a race. Like every other religion it is an ideology which is open to criticism. Whether you agree with that criticism is just a matter of opinion. Some criticism is justified, some may not be justified. I personally don't think Charlie Hebdo did anything wrong. When people use the line "inciting hatred" I blame those who are incited. If you can't accept criticism without becoming so filled with rage and anger that you are out of control, then that's your problem. Similarly, if you read or see something which makes you filled with unjustified hatred against the object of criticism, then that is also your problem.

People are puppets to just about everything; social media, controlled media (Dennis O' Brien). Genuine free speech is a necessity, and is in danger of becoming a rarity. It needs to be protected.

marienbad

jungleman wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, free speech is applicable everywhere in any context unless it is libelous. The Speaker's wife Sally Bercow for instance, she overstepped the mark with that Lord McAlpine tweet. That wasn't free speech, that was libelous and plain malicious. That's when the whole "I have the right to say whatever I want" argument dies.

As far as Islam goes, it is an ideology. It's open to criticism. I personally think that with Scientology, anyone who is a member of that cult is insane. Lot's of people think and say that. But when it comes to critiquing Islam, people throw out the line "that's racist". No it's not, Islam is not a race. Like every other religion it is an ideology which is open to criticism. Whether you agree with that criticism is just a matter of opinion. Some criticism is justified, some may not be justified. I personally don't think Charlie Hebdo did anything wrong. When people use the line "inciting hatred" I blame those who are incited. If you can't accept criticism without becoming so filled with rage and anger that you are out of control, then that's your problem. Similarly, if you read or see something which makes you filled with unjustified hatred against the object of criticism, then that is also your problem.

People are puppets to just about everything; social media, controlled media (Dennis O' Brien). Genuine free speech is a necessity, and is in danger of becoming a rarity. It needs to be protected.

+1000 % if I could .

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not just their problem though. It is everyone's responsibility that they not use the equally nebulous concept of 'free speech' to justify humiliating people.

The person 'humiliated' is dead hundreds of years ffs.
That other people chose to use cartoons depicting a man dead for hundreds of years as a justification for threats and actual violence is the beginning and the end of the problem here.

Their way of solving problems is quite efficient, and very effective, Western laws be damned.

Right, so give in then is that it?

An utterly meaningless phrase - Muslims were the victims of CH's humiliation, they reacted, rendering CH the victims of their own making. What you call victim blaming, I call objectivity.

Which CH cartoons targeted muslims?
When they ridiculed the pope were they targeting all catholics, or just one?
Does the lack of catholic violence in response make the pope cartoons OK but the mohammed ones not OK?

You're not being forced to respect anything,

I am if you're using it as justification to silence me or others.

but you have no right to play the victim when other people who don't feel they should have to respect your opinion either will suggest that Western idealism about free speech is an abomination.

That's their problem. The law is clear. Those who don't like the law should seek to democratically change it (while respecting human rights. Democracy is not in itself an unalloyed good)

If you want to argue that you aren't disrespecting Islam, then you can hardly cry foul when you think Muslims are disrespectful of Western idealism.

I have every right to disrespect islam or any other idea or belief.

And where does that attitude get anyone? Why do you think your opinion is any more worthy of respect than theirs?

Same argument the jihadists use - because I hold it. But I'm not prepared to use violence to silence people or force them to 'respect' my idea.

To attempt to force 'respect' of unevidenced or demonstrably false ideas is lunacy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's time that people in the West grew up and realised that indeed it IS a shared world, and that if they expect Islam to respect their standards, then they too have a responsibility to respect the standards of Islam.

What, we should just without a whimper swap one middle eastern religion controlling what we can say and do, for another middle eastern religion controlling what we can say and do? Because some of them are bad people and they might hurt us if we don't?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

This is meaningless motherhood and apple pie stuff, you are not facing any of the issues raised by your own position.

All you are saying is play nice. No thank you

It should hardly come as a surprise then when other people refuse to play nice then?

Is your goal to wipe out Islam, or is it to share your world with Islam? Islam is going nowhere, and because they're willing to use violence where you're not, who do you think is going to come out the worst of that confrontation?

My money is on the person that has no qualms about using violence to make their point.

Hotblack Desiato

So we must accommodate men of violence at least to the extent where they're probably not going to commit violence against us.

Uhuh.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It should hardly come as a surprise then when other people refuse to play nice then?

Is your goal to wipe out Islam, or is it to share your world with Islam? Islam is going nowhere, and because they're willing to use violence where you're not, who do you think is going to come out the worst of that confrontation?

My money is on the person that has no qualms about using violence to make their point.

People have always refused to play nice when it comes to supressing free speech ( did you look at the examples I gave ?). We have faced down the Roman Empire ,The Byzantine Empire , Napoleon , The Catholic Church , Hitler ,Stalin, the British Empire , and the USA, why do you think we should capitulate to Islam ?

And Islam will come out worst as have all those before who resort to violence over an idea.

A right is either a right everywhere or nowhere .

Lau2976

I believe free speech ends when unprecedented claims are made against an individual. If I say all Jews have hook nosed, anti-Semitic? Yes. But it is also free speech. If I say Howard Stern is a hook nosed Jew? That is free speech because no comment I have made depends on the other. Howard stern may have a hook nose, and he may be Jewish. If I were to say that Howard Stern is a hooked nosed because he is a Jew then I can no longer claim free speech as I am making an unprecedented claim by saying that, what I may see as a hook nose, is caused by the fact that he is Jewish.

I don't believe that we shouldn't being saying offensive things because everything is offensive. Oh your talking about your delis boys bacon and egg mcmuffin? That's offensive to vegans and those who hate mcdonalds. Or your discussing your views on the holocaust? Well that's offensive to nazis, or Jewish, depending on your view.

We shouldn't be telling people that they can't say things, or that it is wrong to find things offensive, by we should be teaching people how to handle a situation when they are offended.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The person 'humiliated' is dead hundreds of years ffs.

The people humiliated are very much alive.

That other people chose to use cartoons depicting a man dead for hundreds of years as a justification for threats and actual violence is the beginning and the end of the problem here.

No, the people who choose to humiliate other people are very much the problem here. The people who are naive enough to think there should be no consequences for their actions are very much the problem here. The people who espouse "do as I say, not as I do", are very much the problem here.

Right, so give in then is that it?

No, not give in to them, just don't go out of your way to provoke them.

Which CH cartoons targeted muslims?
When they ridiculed the pope were they targeting all catholics, or just one?
Does the lack of catholic violence in response make the pope cartoons OK but the mohammed ones not OK?

Come on now, if you expect to be taken seriously, then playing down the significance of the CH cartoons to Muslims is hardly likely to encourage people to see things from your perspective.

As for making fun of Catholics and making fun of Muslims, well, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone by now that different people have different standards, all it takes is sufficient provocation.

I am if you're using it as justification to silence me or others.

I'm not silencing you though. By all means exercise your right to freedom of speech. Knock yourself out, but you shouldn't be surprised when other people exercise what they see as their rights.

That's their problem. The law is clear. Those who don't like the law should seek to democratically change it (while respecting human rights. Democracy is not in itself an unalloyed good)

And they are just as likely to suggest that your disagreement with them is your problem, and if you don't like their laws, they don't have to acknowledge your laws.

You're still thinking in Western standard mindset when you're talking about democracy and human rights. You want to apply your standards to a problem that Muslims don't have by their standards. You see them as their ideas as the problem. They see your ideas as the problem. Stalemate.

I have every right to disrespect islam or any other idea or belief.

Of course you do, and if it weren't for all those pesky people who don't share your opinions, your world would be just peachy.

Muslims have the same problem with all those pesky people who disagree with them.

Same argument the jihadists use - because I hold it. But I'm not prepared to use violence to silence people or force them to 'respect' my idea.

To attempt to force 'respect' of unevidenced or demonstrably false ideas is lunacy.

What's actually lunacy, is to expect that people will come round to your way of thinking because you tell them they should. What's lunacy is to poke fun at people who have no qualms about killing you.

What, we should just without a whimper swap one middle eastern religion controlling what we can say and do, for another middle eastern religion controlling what we can say and do? Because some of them are bad people and they might hurt us if we don't?

Not at all. What I'm simply suggesting is that if you want people to adopt your standards, then humiliating them is likely to turn them against you even more. If you want to preach understanding and tolerance, then you should be prepared to practice it.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people humiliated are very much alive.





No, the people who choose to humiliate other people are very much the problem here. The people who are naive enough to think there should be no consequences for their actions are very much the problem here. The people who espouse "do as I say, not as I do", are very much the problem here.





No, not give in to them, just don't go out of your way to provoke them.





Come on now, if you expect to be taken seriously, then playing down the significance of the CH cartoons to Muslims is hardly likely to encourage people to see things from your perspective.

As for making fun of Catholics and making fun of Muslims, well, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone by now that different people have different standards, all it takes is sufficient provocation.





I'm not silencing you though. By all means exercise your right to freedom of speech. Knock yourself out, but you shouldn't be surprised when other people exercise what they see as their rights.





And they are just as likely to suggest that your disagreement with them is your problem, and if you don't like their laws, they don't have to acknowledge your laws.

You're still thinking in Western standard mindset when you're talking about democracy and human rights. You want to apply your standards to a problem that Muslims don't have by their standards. You see them as their ideas as the problem. They see your ideas as the problem. Stalemate.





Of course you do, and if it weren't for all those pesky people who don't share your opinions, your world would be just peachy.

Muslims have the same problem with all those pesky people who disagree with them.







What's actually lunacy, is to expect that people will come round to your way of thinking because you tell them they should. What's lunacy is to poke fun at people who have no qualms about killing you.





Not at all. What I'm simply suggesting is that if you want people to adopt your standards, then humiliating them is likely to turn them against you even more. If you want to preach understanding and tolerance, then you should be prepared to practice it.

You are not answering any of the issues raised .

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people humiliated are very much alive.

You miss or ignore the point.
The people choosing to be humiliated are very much alive.
They could alternatively choose to grow up and get a life and accept that other people are allowed to have and express opinions.

No, not give in to them, just don't go out of your way to provoke them.

Capitulation.

Come on now, if you expect to be taken seriously, then playing down the significance of the CH cartoons to Muslims is hardly likely to encourage people to see things from your perspective.

I couldn't bloody care less, any more than I care about the catholic opinion of cartoons of the pope. It's free speech, the subject of this thread, and ultimately free speech means the right to say something that someone else would rather you didn't.

As for making fun of Catholics and making fun of Muslims, well, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone by now that different people have different standards, all it takes is sufficient provocation.

There is no such thing as 'sufficient provocation' and to argue otherwise is to excuse terrorism.

I'm not silencing you though. By all means exercise your right to freedom of speech. Knock yourself out, but you shouldn't be surprised when other people exercise what they see as their rights.

You are justifying terrorism.

And they are just as likely to suggest that your disagreement with them is your problem, and if you don't like their laws, they don't have to acknowledge your laws.

As above. You are justifying terrorism.

You're still thinking in Western standard mindset when you're talking about democracy and human rights. You want to apply your standards to a problem that Muslims don't have by their standards. You see them as their ideas as the problem. They see your ideas as the problem. Stalemate.

So we give up our standards and our rights so we don't risk 'offending' a small minority of people of a given religion. Nah.

Muslims have the same problem with all those pesky people who disagree with them.

The problem, as I'm sure you know, is what a small number of them are prepared to do about it.
Some of us can accept disagreement without threatening violence or death. This is a more mature and evolved position.

What's actually lunacy, is to expect that people will come round to your way of thinking because you tell them they should. What's lunacy is to poke fun at people who have no qualms about killing you.

I couldn't give two scuttery shites whether they 'come around to my position' or not. But what I will not tolerate is violation of the law and human rights.

Not at all. What I'm simply suggesting is that if you want people to adopt your standards, then humiliating them is likely to turn them against you even more. If you want to preach understanding and tolerance, then you should be prepared to practice it.

Preaching understanding and tolerance to jihadists? for real? Most muslims who live in the west already accept understanding and tolerance. It is the tiny minority we are talking about here, but they are seeking to use violence to make all muslims and non-muslims bend to their hateful agenda.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

People have always refused to play nice when it comes to supressing free speech ( did you look at the examples I gave ?). We have faced down the Roman Empire ,The Byzantine Empire , Napoleon , The Catholic Church , Hitler ,Stalin, the British Empire , and the USA, why do you think we should capitulate to Islam ?

Where are you getting this idea that I said you have to capitulate to anything?

Whatever happened to "It's not what you say, but how you say it?", and if you mock people's ideas, you're going to piss people off.

In what world are you living where you think people should stand idly by and... not to put too fine a point on it but, take that sort of crap?

And Islam will come out worst as have all those before who resort to violence over an idea.

In case you hadn't noticed, people have quite the propensity to resort to violence to impose their will upon other people. You're living in some alternate reality if you think that history hasn't shown that violence is quite an effective and brutal solution to get people to come round to your way of thinking, especially given some of the examples you used above.

That's quite a hefty price to pay in human lives for the right to freedom of speech, and then to use that right to insult people? Is that what those people died for, so that people could use the right to freedom of speech to insult people?

Seriously, how frickin' childish is that?

A right is either a right everywhere or nowhere .

A right only means something if it's recognised by someone else, otherwise it's simply an opinion. Therefore a right is only a right where it is recognised, and an opinion where it isn't.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that I said you have to capitulate to anything?

Whatever happened to "It's not what you say, but how you say it?", and if you mock people's ideas, you're going to piss people off.

In what world are you living where you think people should stand idly by and... not to put too fine a point on it but, take that sort of crap?





In case you hadn't noticed, people have quite the propensity to resort to violence to impose their will upon other people. You're living in some alternate reality if you think that history hasn't shown that violence is quite an effective and brutal solution to get people to come round to your way of thinking, especially given some of the examples you used above.

That's quite a hefty price to pay in human lives for the right to freedom of speech, and then to use that right to insult people? Is that what those people died for, so that people could use the right to freedom of speech to insult people?

Seriously, how frickin' childish is that?





A right only means something if it's recognised by someone else, otherwise it's simply an opinion. Therefore a right is only a right where it is recognised, and an opinion where it isn't.

This is just more meaningless gobbledegook. You are just avoiding any issue raised with meaningless platitudes .

So lets get specific here . Do you think it was right that prolife groups sought to have information on UK abortion clinic banned in Ireland ?

bigt132

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.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more meaningless gobbledegook. You are just avoiding any issue raised with mean meaningless platitudes .

It's not for the lack of trying, I assure you. I see where yourself and others are coming from, but I just don't agree that "that's their problem if they're offended" is likely to result in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

So lets get specific here . Do you think it was right that prolife groups sought to have information on UK abortion clinic banned in Ireland ?

I thought when you said let's get specific, we were being specific in limiting the scope of the discussion to Islam and the CH incident, but fair enough, I'll run with the above.

I don't think it was right that prolife groups sought to have information on UK abortion clinics banned in Ireland, and further to that, I don't think it's right that prolife groups can set up stands outside family restaurants displaying graphic images of foetuses.

The reason I raise that point is because I read on the abortion thread here about the incident that happened to another poster, but it's a bit late now to jump in and say that what I did in that situation was I went down to the local Garda station and made a complaint. The Gardaí weren't long having the images removed and the people moved on.

Was I wrong in denying the prolife group their freedom of speech or their freedom of expression? I was of course, but then as far as I'm concerned - nobody needs to be subjected to that kinda shìt.

Turtwig

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not for the lack of trying, I assure you. I see where yourself and others are coming from, but I just don't agree that "that's their problem if they're offended" is likely to result in any kind of meaningful dialogue.





I thought when you said let's get specific, we were being specific in limiting the scope of the discussion to Islam and the CH incident, but fair enough, I'll run with the above.

I don't think it was right that prolife groups sought to have information on UK abortion clinics banned in Ireland, and further to that, I don't think it's right that prolife groups can set up stands outside family restaurants displaying graphic images of foetuses.

The reason I raise that point is because I read on the abortion thread here about the incident that happened to another poster, but it's a bit late now to jump in and say that what I did in that situation was I went down to the local Garda station and made a complaint. The Gardaí weren't long having the images removed and the people moved on.




Was I wrong in denying the prolife group their freedom of speech or their freedom of expression? I was of course, but then as far as I'm concerned - nobody needs to be subjected to that kinda shìt.

Who said anything about limiting the discussion to Islam ?

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 ?

One eyed Jack

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?

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

So you are saying so long as the intent was to inform the right to be offended was superseded ?

Turtwig

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.

obplayer

marienbad wrote: »

So you are saying so long as the intent was to inform the right to be offended was superseded ?

The simple answer is that we only have the right to use physical violence in defense of ourselves or others against proffered physical violence. No one has the right to instigate physical violence unless it is first offered to them. You don't like my writing / cartoons / videos? Tough. Don't watch / read / listen to them. If someone gets all upset to the point of violence at something which is ridiculing their faith / views / appearance / intelligence / smell then they should be dealt with by the full force of the law. Without fear or favour.

shaymus27

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.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

So you are saying so long as the intent was to inform the right to be offended was superseded ?

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.

Mellor

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.

pauldla

Mellor wrote: »

...
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.

What is 'racist lampooning'? MLK has been roundly lampooned/mocked by Ali G and Cracked.com (the former using the 'I have a dream' speech, the latter for MLKs rampant plagiarism). Are these examples of racist lampooning? If so, is it coz he's black?

Turtwig

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

pauldla wrote: »

What is 'racist lampooning'? MLK has been roundly lampooned/mocked by Ali G and Cracked.com (the former using the 'I have a dream' speech, the latter for MLKs rampant plagiarism). Are these examples of racist lampooning? If so, is it coz he's black?

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.

Turtwig wrote: »

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

Some people suggested that you should be able to say what ever you want about people's beliefs as it's a choice they make. I'm trying to point out how absurd that it by taking it to an extreme conclusion.
In the 1930s in germany, it progressed from casual antisemitism, to open criticism, to antisemitic laws, to the holocaust.
Was any of that acceptable?

pauldla

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

pauldla wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

pauldla

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.

Mellor

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.

Some people suggested that you should be able to say what ever you want about people's beliefs as it's a choice they make. I'm trying to point out how absurd that it by taking it to an extreme conclusion.
In the 1930s in germany, it progressed from casual antisemitism, to open criticism, to antisemitic laws, to the holocaust.
Was any of that acceptable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOASKzvGKSg

Sorry to just appear to just pick up this singular point, but I think you should watch that programme if you can.

Failing being able to watch the entire thing (it is 70 mins long), there's a review here, and some of the views here.

Though it looks to be focused on the single topic above, I think as a programme it raised some excellent points. The scene with Trevor Phillips discussing his viewpoints with Simon Woolley (@15:45 ->) is especially good, as both men raise points that are echoed throughout this thread.

marienbad

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.

K4t

wretcheddomain wrote: »

My argument is simple. Restrictions should be in place for incitement to hatred

YES

overt racism and so forth.

NO

This isn't an arbitrary opinion, but something all ordinary decent people would agree with.

Can you repeat the question, you're not the boss of me now.


What if everyone agreed that racism was right? And homophobia? And sexism? Would limits or lines on speech in opposition to those things also not be an arbitrary opinion, but something all ordinary decent people would agree on?