Where to draw the line on free speech?

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's tolerant about people who choose to humiliate other people? Do you expect that you should be able to tie their hands behind their back and kick seven colours out of them, but if they retaliate - "the bastards!".





I don't think most people would get the idea that anyone should have the right to humiliate other people tbh. That's a slippery slope.





You're playing down the significance of CH's actions, I suppose they couldn't help themselves either. They should have no responsibility for their actions. They have their rights, and responsibility is the standard for everyone else.





I would, because I would see it as unnecessary humiliation.

Bullsh1t.
Physically beating someone is assault This is not covered under 'freedom of speech'

If someone shouts racist or blatantly personally abusive comments at someone deliberately to offend them and incite a 'breach of the peace' then they are guilty of an offence under the public order act 1994

If someone persistently targets abusive and offensive behaviour towards an individual over an extended period of time, then this person is guilty of harrassment under the non fatal offenses against the person act 1997

These are specific instances where freedom of speech are legitimately curtailed by legislation

What Charlie Hebdo do does not fall under any of these categories. CH attacks Political cultural and religious practises and ideas. And the right to strongly oppose and challange and disagree with someone else's ideas or practises, or beliefs, are fundamental to the establishment of a democracy

If you are a member of NAMBLA and support their ideas, I have a right to attack your beliefs using the most offensive language I can think of. If you are offended by what I have to say, that's irrelevant. Ideas are not protetected

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's being stretched here is the parameters of any meaningful discussion about free speech when we can introduce whatever the hell we like into the discussion and keep moving further and further away from anything that's actually relevant -

It has a lot to do with the idea of what people can be offended about, and whether they should be protected from offence because it is their culture.

I should be allowed to vocally criticise the treatment of women in fundamentalist islamic states even if some people think that is offensive to their cultural beliefs.

I should be able to deliberately offend people who hold such beliefs.I should be able to walk up to the king of Saudi and call him a misogynist and a tyrant because of the beliefs he holds and the rules he imposes onto women in his kingdom even if to do so, would personally offend him.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it's clear that you're dodging the question because the answer rests uncomfortably with your support for General Consensus as a basis for anything really.

I missed your edit -

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you straight out that I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to be able to agree that they are treated as second class citizens by standards in Saudi Arabia.

You've already formed the opinion in your mind that because I don't support free for all speech in Ireland, that I would agree that women should be treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia.

I just don't see what one has to do with the other, apart from a mere hairs breadth of a connection between them on the basis of the standard of general consensus. I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

If anyone is dodging questions here...

marienbad

One-Eyed Jack , what do you think of this comment ?

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

Bullsh1t.
Physically beating someone is assault This is not covered under 'freedom of speech'

If someone shouts racist or blatantly personally abusive comments at someone deliberately to offend them and incite a 'breach of the peace' then they are guilty of an offence under the public order act 1994

If someone persistently targets abusive and offensive behaviour towards an individual over an extended period of time, then this person is guilty of harrassment under the non fatal offenses against the person act 1997

These are specific instances where freedom of speech are legitimately curtailed by legislation

What Charlie Hebdo do does not fall under any of these categories. CH attacks Political cultural and religious practises and ideas. And the right to strongly oppose and challange and disagree with someone else's ideas or practises, or beliefs, are fundamental to the establishment of a democracy

If you are a member of NAMBLA and support their ideas, I have a right to attack your beliefs using the most offensive language I can think of. If you are offended by what I have to say, that's irrelevant. Ideas are not protetected

Yeesh, this post is all over the place. You've dipped in and out of Irish law, French society, and a dash of pedophilia for the cherry on top.

Where do I even start?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

Whats is this "General Consensus"?

You seem to bring it up in almost every post.

Do you mean laws passed by elected officials?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

One-Eyed Jack , what do you think of this comment ?

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

Looks lovely, what's your point?

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".


It's akin to something I'd hear in a school playground tbh.

One eyed Jack

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats is this "General Consensus"?

You seem to bring it up in almost every post.

Do you mean laws passed by elected officials?

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society. Laws are derived from the opinion of the majority in society, and the rights conferred upon all citizens of that society are balanced by their responsibility towards that society.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Looks lovely, what's your point?

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".


It's akin to something I'd hear in a school playground tbh.

Do you agree with the comment or not ?

And I find your comment deeply offensive , I and the other posters put a lot of efforts into our posts and to have them so trivialised is needlessly out of line .

Maybe you should be banned ?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society.

And does a citizen know what the "general consensus" is?

If I want to make a poster for my upcoming book, how would I know what the "general consensus" is?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".

Really?

The general consensus is that the concept of Free Speech isnt that difficult to understand.

:eek:

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Do you agree with the comment or not ?

And I find your comment deeply offensive , I and the other posters put a lot of efforts into our posts and to have them so trivialised is needlessly out of line .

Maybe you should be banned ?

You're taking a comment I made in another thread and introducing it completely out of context, and you expect that I should have to entertain your efforts?

If I were to strip away the context of your opinion, I could put it to you that you want to allow homophobes and racists the right to abuse and humiliate people. I know you don't obviously, but I'm going to tell you what your opinion is anyway. You'd rightly tell me where to go.

I apologise that you find my comments offensive and i see that maybe it would be best for all concerned that I leave the discussion now before I am banned.

seamus

Probably been discussed at length, but my overall view on free speech is that everyone should feel like they are permitted to say whatever they want, but with the understanding that what they say may have legal consequences.

Legally, that means that you may be sued or prosecuted if what you say causes, or intends to cause harm or detriment to someone else.

Being offended is not included in the definition of "harm". So yelling fire in a crowded cinema would leave you open to prosecution. Saying Jesus was a prick, would not.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I missed your edit -

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you straight out that I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to be able to agree that they are treated as second class citizens by standards in Saudi Arabia.

You've already formed the opinion in your mind that because I don't support free for all speech in Ireland, that I would agree that women should be treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia.

I just don't see what one has to do with the other, apart from a mere hairs breadth of a connection between them on the basis of the standard of general consensus. I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

If anyone is dodging questions here...

I'll phrase the question as such instead so as you can't offend anyone.

Do you believe (i.e your opinion) that anyone who wishes to have equal rights as others in their society, where the 'general consensus' is currently that they should not, should stop fighting for them?

I've not formed any opinions, I'm asking you to consider the implications of what you're saying regarding offering the 'general consensus' the power of censorship.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're taking a comment I made in another thread and introducing it completely out of context, and you expect that I should have to entertain your efforts?

If I were to strip away the context of your opinion, I could put it to you that you want to allow homophobes and racists the right to abuse and humiliate people. I know you don't obviously, but I'm going to tell you what your opinion is anyway. You'd rightly tell me where to go.

I apologise that you find my comments offensive and i see that maybe it would be best for all concerned that I leave the discussion now before I am banned.

What relevance if the comment if from another thread I happen to be following ? You made it so I presume you stand by it ? And it is exactly what you are arguing against here ?

No I don't want homophobes and racists to abuse people - ( why do people when they are losing an argument always gravitate towards the extremes ? Next you will bring up the paedophile literature argument .)

If I can take you back , I said we start with the principle that free speech and expression is a right and from there we make cases as to where that untrammelled right should be limited and so we have defamation laws , race laws, homophobic laws etc - so I wonder do you really read posts at all ?

And I don't find your comments in the least bit offensive , do you do irony at all ? I am just giving a simple example of how your argument would work in reality .

The curious thing is that we don't have very far to look to see what kind of society you end up with following your formula - Ireland up to 20 years ago .If you wer'nt around back then I suggest you have a review of it- not a pleasant place if you didn't fit in with 'the general consensus' you so espouse

BuilderPlumber

I believe in the right of responsible free speech. As said on another thread, this means that free speech needs to be thought of in terms of bullying, harassment, suicide, depression, spreading hatred or inspiring terror. Free speech or what is best for society? I think the following types of free speech should most certainly not be allowed:

-Radical preachers of hatred of any religion or belief. Hamza and Qatada are 2 obvious examples.
-The passing of know how to another deliberately done so and solely to inspire or commit an act of terrorism.
-Any racist or sectarian hate remarks.
-Bullying, belittling and harassment remarks.

I DON'T think any decent person who would be for free speech would want any of the above because ALL actually create an environment where there is no free speech!

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's tolerant about people who choose to humiliate other people? Do you expect that you should be able to tie their hands behind their back and kick seven colours out of them, but if they retaliate - "the bastards!".

Non-sequitur.
They didn't choose to draw a cartoon to humiliate other people. They chose to ridicule an idea, the idea that drawing a cartoon can be used to excuse violence.
You then go off asking what might happen if someone assaults someone else, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic at all.

I don't think most people would get the idea that anyone should have the right to humiliate other people tbh. That's a slippery slope.

How does drawing a cartoon humiliate anyone? You are throwing this word around because you think it sounds better than saying 'feel offended'.

Because people can choose to feel offended by anything. Yet that's what happened in this case - some people chose to be offended, a few chose to incite violence, a handful chose to commit violence. All choices, because they could not bear the idea that their belief system could be questioned by anyone else.

You're playing down the significance of CH's actions, I suppose they couldn't help themselves either.

They could, but they chose not to let threats from fanatical lunatics silence them, and that is to be admired.

If muslims said it was offensive, would you want to ban it then?

I would, because I would see it as unnecessary humiliation.

So let a fanatical minority of a minority religion (most muslims in France seem not to endorse violence against Charlie Hebdo) dictate what other people can say, because otherwise they will have an "excuse" to threaten or kill them?

Really, how can you even begin to justify that?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society. Laws are derived from the opinion of the majority in society, and the rights conferred upon all citizens of that society are balanced by their responsibility towards that society.

Oh wait, changed your mind, the majority should set the standards not a handful of murderous fanatics. Except where the handful of fanatics are muslim, then we mustn't say anything they might not like.

InTheTrees

I was wondering to myself why this thread was in the "Religion & Spirituality" section and "Atheism & Agnosticism" forum.

Shouldn't it be in Politics and Government? Or Constitutional Issues?

Or is it because Free Speech is really only an issue in the west to the slightly one track minds of those "of faith". (trying not to be too offensive here.)

Hotblack Desiato

There's no requirement to only discuss a topic in one forum. Different forums will have different perspectives

Threads do get moved if off-topic, but has anything ever been found to be off-topic in A&A?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68490605

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

[...] has anything ever been found to be off-topic in A&A?

Well, many religious claim ownership of everything, so it seems reasonable that people who reject religion should make a similar global claim, even if only that they can refute religion wherever it appears.

InTheTrees

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's no requirement to only discuss a topic in one forum. Different forums will have different perspectives

I have no problem with it being here just that it helps explain why some posters have such trouble with the concept.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

I have no problem with it being here just that it helps explain why some posters have such trouble with the concept.

Please explain further.

BuilderPlumber

marienbad wrote: »

And you don't see the inconsistency in your position ? you deem pro abortion information desirable and anti abortion information ( no matter how graphic) undesirable ?

And saying you went to the Garda is a cop out , as an aside I would say they exceeded their powers but that is Ireland for you . You decided they were unacceptable and you too steps to remove them .That makes you no different than Dr Selim Ali threatening to invoke the blasphemy law or the Iona crown running to the courts at every opportunity.

My position is quite simple , I see free speech and free expression as a right and not as a privilege . So the starting point should be nothing is forbidden - from there you give reasons as to what should be restricted and if a case is made we pass laws accordingly , thus the laws on defamation ,the anti racist laws, lots of the criminal law and so on.

So your notion of I don't like that poster but I like our poster is just thrown out the door . As is the Islamic idea of I don't like that cartoon or that book.

And not alone is it not a right not to be offended , it is our duty as responsible citizens to set out to offend .

I see free speech as something VERY similar to medicine, alcohol, guns, etc. It is something that does hold responsibilities. One has to be careful and think things through or else deal with the consequences.

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

There are laws to restrict neo-Nazis and fascists from spreading their beliefs. A state where one would be encouraged to praise the Nazi regime and spout racist agenda and that state boasting of the right of free speech is an example of this abuse. Ironically, the whole holocaust denial crowd would exactly have this argument.

Free speech does need to be monitored and those who abuse it have to live with the consequences. Free speech can get one's attention and can be useful in seeing who are terrorist-orientated in their thoughts and words.

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

marienbad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I see free speech as something VERY similar to medicine, alcohol, guns, etc. It is something that does hold responsibilities. One has to be careful and think things through or else deal with the consequences.

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

There are laws to restrict neo-Nazis and fascists from spreading their beliefs. A state where one would be encouraged to praise the Nazi regime and spout racist agenda and that state boasting of the right of free speech is an example of this abuse. Ironically, the whole holocaust denial crowd would exactly have this argument.

Free speech does need to be monitored and those who abuse it have to live with the consequences. Free speech can get one's attention and can be useful in seeing who are terrorist-orientated in their thoughts and words.

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

So who decides when it is bullying or harassment ?

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

One should not abuse any rights of free speech to deliberately belittle, bully or harass; or to use it to sow the seeds of hatred. Deliberately setting out to offend is not the same as condemning evil organisations. Deliberate offending is not innocent and is intended thus is a form of bullying.

Two gay men walking down the street holding hands would be considered deliberately offensive by some.
Would you consider the people being offended as victims of bullying?

With regard to the Iona and Selim Ali: no notice should be taken of these. Iona are a hardline organisation hiding behind a fancy name. Selim Ali has shown he supports compulsory veiling of women is therefore an ally of fascism not Islam. Such people ironically use the free speech argument (either for or against it depending on the issues!) to defend their policy.

If they weren't given high profile access to the media and to our democratic processes then I'd be happy to ignore them.

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Two gay men walking down the street holding hands would be considered deliberately offensive by some.
Would you consider the people being offended as victims of bullying?

No. This is not deliberately offensive. They are in a relationship and they holding hands is not aimed at bullying anyone obviously.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If they weren't given high profile access to the media and to our democratic processes then I'd be happy to ignore them.

Agreed. I don't see why they are given such a high profile in the media. Both are hardline and intolerant but try to hide it.

marienbad wrote: »

So who decides when it is bullying or harassment ?

When something is done deliberately to belittle another. Like the example of two gay men holding hands above is not bullying. But someone making a racist or putdown comment to another to deliberately make them feel uncomfortable clearly is.

When one feels offended by some equivalent of Irish Pictorial Weekly or other such poor satirical fare, one is giving such stuff a status it hardly deserves and gives it an edge it never had! In other words, such people (ISIS-loving fascists or not) should get a life!

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No. This is not deliberately offensive. They are in a relationship and they holding hands is not aimed at bullying anyone obviously.

What if they were doing this down a main street in Riyadh.
With the deliberate intention of making people uncomfortable and to challenge people's ideas.
Is that not being deliberately offensive?

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What if they were doing this down a main street in Riyadh.
With the deliberate intention of making people uncomfortable and to challenge people's ideas.
Is that not being deliberately offensive?

Riyadh is the capital of a country ruled currently by fascists. Gay people exist in this country, so do broadminded people. I bet that over 90% of the people in Saudi Arabia and especially its cities are 100% fed up with decades of repressive fascism where a repressive voodooism hides corruption. Would this offend the fascists if 2 men held hands? No. They would instead pretend to be and then would kill or jail them once again to frighten the people into obedience of their evil regime.

Standing up to fascist dictatorships is 100% the right thing to do. This is NOT bullying but standing up to a bully. In fact, all women in such countries should wear their hair uncovered, etc. and everyone should start drinking and give their idiot rulers a message that their voodoo has no legitimacy whatsoever and is imposed only to keep the people poor. You can bet the rulers of places like Saudi Arabia have a VERY different lifestyle to the ones they impose on their poor people.

jackofalltrades

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Would this offend the fascists if 2 men held hands? No.

I think this would definitely offend people.
I specifically choice Saudi Arabia as a place that would have a lower tolerance of overt homosexuality.
My whole point being that, just because you are being deliberately offensive does not necessarily mean you're bullying someone.

BuilderPlumber

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think this would definitely offend people.
I specifically choice Saudi Arabia as a place that would have a lower tolerance of overt homosexuality.
My whole point being that, just because you are being deliberately offensive does not necessarily mean you're bullying someone.

And it is all about respect. Fascist thugs who abuse religion and power for their own greedy ends (e.g. the Saudi regime) I don't respect and couldn't care less if they were offended or not. The right to stand up to thuggery and to have a government answerable to the people is something a person should be able to do no matter where they are from.

Regimes like Saudi Arabia should not exist in today's world. Ironically, what they do and what they stand for offend people not even living there. It is horrible to see a devil worshipping satanic regime like this that is the basically the devil get away with anything it likes because the world needs their oil. Medieval satanism and devil worship cults like this would not last long in a country with no oil I would feel let alone be tolerated by the whole world.