* So much for free speech! * Or... Free Speech for us, not you!

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 03:17PM #1

This is a exert from an Austrailian paper...

I truly find this ridiculous.

I found this posted on the CoF board, and I thought it would make a decent discussion here.
On the board there were many comments like "I'm glad I live in Holland." or Such-like...

I also find it quite stupid that the "Australian Family Association" would go and say: "It is Anti-Christ. We are supposed to be a Christian Country. Depictions such as that undermine the stability of the family."

I mean, is this simply just trying to villanise people, so that such parties can claim the moral ground?
Seriously... WHAT on earth does it have to do with "The Family"?
Is this just trying to grab support from parents by going down on people for doing nothing other than what certain constitutions give them the right to?

My point is: While I do agree that the shirt is offensive, how much is too much?
I mean, if there isn't TOTAL freedom of speech, any old Jesus Freak can start shouting from a soap box about indecency...
I mean, different things can offend different people, does this mean that they can start taking others to court over what they deem is "OK"?

Personaly... I have a few friends who have this shirt, and they never got arrested for it! But I'm uncertain about whether or not these actions could be repeated in this country.

What are people's views on this?

bugler · 01-07-2001 03:41PM

Ah yes, the Cradle of filth shirts.Didn't they have to be removed from some store in Scotland when they first came out? The problem is, if you allow 'total freedom of speech' then you open up the floor to all sorts of people, and people with shirts reading 'Jesus is a cúnt' might be the least offensive of them. What about 'All blacks are monkeys?' on a shirt? Should we allow this? Or 'All taigs/prods should die'? If we allow anyone to wear any message regardless of whether or not in takes into consideration the feelings or views of others, we are asking for trouble.

Maybe we should look at why people feel the need to shock others through hardly imaginative slogans on their clothing. Freedom of speech or actions sounds well and good in theory, but it needs boundaries I think, unfortunately.I don't agree with with binding Christianity with a country however, why should any country be defined as a 'Christian country'? Leave it out bible bashers.

m1RV · 01-07-2001 03:42PM

Well, it depends if the picture shown on the shirt was pornographic, and if the text was using swear words too.

Molly · 01-07-2001 03:50PM

Well wearing clothing that insults a large community is drawing unneccessary hassle on yourself. She says

i knew it was pretty full on, i knew people may be offended by it

Well if she knew would offend a large group
of people she shouldn't have worn it, unless
of course she just wanted attention for
wearing a clothing item with obscene
phrase's on it, especailly if there in large
print like this one apparently was. So in my opinion it was deserved.

[This message has been edited by Molly (edited 01-07-2001).]

Magwitch · 01-07-2001 04:50PM

I agree with m1RV and Molly. It is not as if she was wearing an "I'm wif stupid" tee-shirt. She wore something that was offensive to Christians in a season of religous celebration and verbally offensive in an area populated by children.

The rhetoric of the reaction was a little weird, but what the hell, she wanted a reaction - she got one.

The only thing I think that is disturbing about this is that people expect to be able to insult, degrade or deride the sacred beliefs of others for the purpose of attention seeking and not be hauled up on it. I am not partial to relgion, but if this is a civil rights issue, the the issue is the freedom to practice ones relgion without insult or derision comes to mind.

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 06:10PM

I see what you are saying Bugler...
The door does in fact swing both ways.

But you slightly miss my point.
Obviosly it was offensive, but thats not the point I'm making.

It's the whole Double Standards thing. And how this is totaly blown out of proportion.
I mean, have the shirt DESTROYED???
$75 fine?

My point is really, like I said, how much is too much?

I mean, in America, people go around wearing the "GOD HATES FAGS!" T-Shirts, and, just because it's on God's side, this is considered ok.
I mean, Godhatesfags.com is quite big in America, and they have by far more offensive slogans than anything else.

Yet this never comes under slander.

I hardly agree with what Magwitch says: freedom to practice ones relgion without insult...

Just goes down again to "Free Speach For Us, Not For You."

I mean, hasn't anyone seen a person wear one of those "Jesus Was A Black Man" T-Shirts?
This could clearly be considered a beleif.

I mean, if the woman in question actualy BELEIVED that jesus actualy WAS a ****, isn't that just crushing someone's beleifs because they don't conform to the Christian standard?
I mean, lets say some gay person was to take offence to one of the God Hates Fags T-Shirts... Are the authorities going to do anything?

Personaly, don't get me wrong here, but I don't think the shirt should be worn publicaly. It's perfectly fine though, in my opinion to be worn, lets say, in a pub, or in a club, or something like that...

I mean, I have a T-Shirt that has "TOTAL ****ING DARKNESS" written across it, and I was once told to cover it up, thats totaly fine by me...
But I think it would be absolutely WRONG if I was arrested for it, fined, and then to have it destroyed...

Shinji · 01-07-2001 06:11PM

Yawn. You set out to deliberately offend people and then whinge when they get offended. What the hell do people who wander around wearing stupid things like that EXPECT? It's not even funny or vaguely subversive, it's just downright rude and stupid.

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 07:50PM

Well Shinji, that could be said for wearing the whong football T-Shirt at the wrong time.

Belisarius · 01-07-2001 08:09PM

But a football shirt rarely infringes on religous liberties , And when it does its rarely advertantly. The COH T-shirt was distinctly Anti-something , in this case Roman Catholocism ,now if you were to follow the law to the letter it can be interpreted as another belief converse to christianity , but thats hardly believeable . While the fine and the Destruction of the Garment was a bit much *and a bit ludicrous , theyre going to have a mass burning of Tshirts as fast as some Indonesian sweatshop can produce em? or do they feel it was a lone abomination spawned by Satan to wreak havoc among the townsfolk* but the general Sentiment was proabably correct

The Man From Delmonte , He Say "Yes"

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 08:19PM

No, a football shirt doesn't infringe on religious beleifs, but damn... Soccer Riots anyone?

This is a very interesting discussion so far...

But you really are missing my main point altogether...

bugler · 01-07-2001 08:31PM

I don't know if we are! Your main point is.. how much is too much? Well I suppose that anything that is deliberately offensive to an ethnic or religious group is too much.It is not an ideal measure, your point on the football shirt is taken, but I think common sense should be used. As for Godhatesfags, well I think that is offensive, and should one appear I would hope complaints and maybe an arrest would follow.Thing is, anyone who wears a shirt like that is probably an inbred hick living in a community of close relatives, and therefore little action is likely to be taken.

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 08:47PM

Well... According to the website, Godhatesfags.com is supported by George W. Bush!

Like I said...

Causing public offence... Yeah, thats not right. But what they did was far too much!!!
$75 fine??? Destruction of the T-Shirt...

But you know... Wearing it around at concerts and clubs... At home... That's fine...

What they did was going WAY overboard...

Shinji · 01-07-2001 08:47PM

I know what your main point is.

Freedom of speech and expression (which, I ought to remind you, is NOT enshrined in the constitution of most countries, Ireland included...) means you should be allowed to say what you want, when you want.

This instance does breach freedom of speech. HOWEVER, in such an instance, the response of myself - and 99% of the population - is "tough shít". When you do something like this idiot did, you're deliberately trying to provoke a response from people, and it's CERTAINLY inappropriate to wear it in an area full of children.

You'd get arrested for wearing a t-shirt saying "**** suck" in Brooklyn. You'd get arrested for wearing a sign saying "God hates fags" at Mardi Gras. Why should this be any different?

Personally I think she needs to be locked up for endangering the musical taste of innocent people by listening to utter poo.

Belisarius · 01-07-2001 08:49PM

Hehe keeping it in the family so to speak

.

As for soccer riots I knew youd mention that , OK take for instance Celtic/Rangers , alot of that Is religously based , but its not direct , people make assumptions based on yer Football team and act on them , but its hardly advertising is it?

The Man From Delmonte , He Say "Yes"

Belisarius · 01-07-2001 08:50PM

It was an Overreaction Granted..but it isnt by any massive stretch

Karl Hungus · 01-07-2001 08:58PM

Shinji... Calling a person an idiot like that is a bit ridiculous...

Personaly, I usualy have a number of Pentagams on my atire...
On T-Shirts and such like... Around my neck...

This could be considered EXTREMELY Anti-Christian.
I'm not trying to cause any offence at all...

It's a pidgeon holed view, that if someone is offended, another person MUST have delibrately done something to offend them.

And like I said... This is simply blown out of all proportion.
I do know a few people who have worn these shirts, and nobody cared...

TwoShedsJackson · 01-07-2001 09:17PM

The url of the site that pic is hosted on could be considered vaguely 'anti-Christian' as well. Can you resize that image AngelWhore, broken threads annoy me.

Clintons Cat · 01-07-2001 09:21PM

maybe she shouldnt of worn her "all judges are ****ing ****s too" t shirt to the trial hearing.

androphobic · 01-07-2001 10:34PM

Maybe it depends on what importance you put on religion.
I don't think it was too much, Angelwhore - she knew it would cause trouble.. if someone goes out of their way to cause trouble they should face the consequences.

It's all about respect I think. We all know that there are millions of Christians throughout the world and I think that it's only right that their beliefs should be respected.
But don't get me wrong, if the t-shirt had said something offensive about Allah or whatever it should have been destroyed too.

I suppose it could be argued that the woman's possessions should be respected too etc. but, at the end of the day, she went out of her way to offend and succeeded to do so. It's sorta advocation of hate, isn't it? That can hardly be allowed.

Belisarius · 01-07-2001 11:06PM

Originally posted by androphobic:

But don't get me wrong, if the t-shirt had said something offensive about Allah or whatever it should have been destroyed too.

Youre obviously a friend of the Circut Court Judge who had my "I love the Ayatollah" t-shirt burned

The Man From Delmonte , He Say "Yes"

Clintons Cat · 01-07-2001 11:18PM

I mean, in America, people go around wearing the "GOD HATES FAGS!" T-Shirts, and, just because it's on God's side, this is considered ok.

But the courtcase happened in Austrailia,
two different countries with two very different legal traditions and interpretations on the rights of the individual,blasphemy laws ect ect.
You might as well protest that its not fair that people get locked up in saudi arabia for drinking alchol,but nobody cares if you drink alchol in dublin.

<<STOP PRESS>>
She paid $80 for a T Shirt????
Never mind the ********
Malcolm Mc Claren must be spining in his grave.

[This message has been edited by Clintons Cat (edited 02-07-2001).]

Hobbes · 02-07-2001 01:44AM

Story comes from an email I got back in 1996
Here is the picture in question for those of
you who don't know about the BSD Deamon.

Linda Branagan is an expert on daemons.
She has a T-shirt that sports the daemon in
tennis shoes that appears on the cover of
the 4.3BSD manuals and "The Design and
Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating
System" by S. Leffler, M. McKusick, M. arels,
J. Quarterman, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Reading, MA, 1989.

She tells the following story about wearing
the 4.3BSD daemon T-shirt:

Last week I walked into a local "home style
cookin' restaurant/watering hole" in Texas
to pick up a take-out order. I spoke
briefly to the waitress behind the counter,
who told me my order would be done in a few
minutes.

So, while I was busy gazing at the farm
implements hanging on the walls, I was
approached by two "natives." These guys
might just be the original Texas rednecks.

"Pardon us, ma'am. Mind if we ask you a
question?"

Well, people keep telling me that Texans are
real friendly, so I nodded.

"Are you a Satanist?"

Well, at least they didn't ask me if I liked
to party.

"Uh, no, I can't say that I am."

"Gee, ma'am. Are you sure about that?" they
asked.

I put on my biggest, brightest Dallas
Cowboys cheerleader smile and said, "No, I'm
positive. The closest I've ever come to
Satanism is watching Geraldo."

"Hmmm. Interesting. See, we was just
wondering why it is you have the lord of
darkness on your chest there."

I was this close to slapping one of them and
causing a scene -- then I stopped and
noticed the shirt I happened to be wearing
that day. Sure enough, it had a picture of
a small, devilish-looking creature that has
for some time now been associated with a
certain operating system.

In this particular representation, the
creature was wearing sneakers.

They continued: "See, ma'am, we don't
exactly appreciate it when people show off
pictures of the devil. Especially when he's
lookin' so friendly."

These idiots sounded terrifyingly serious.

Me: "Oh, well, see, this isn't really the
devil, it's just, well, it's sort of a
mascot."

Native: "And what kind of football team has
the devil as a mascot?"

Me: "Oh, it's not a team. It's an
operating -- uh, a kind of computer."

I figured that an ATM machine was about as
much technology as these guys could handle,
and I knew that if I so much as uttered the
word "UNIX" I would only make things worse.

Native: "Where does this satanical computer
come from?"

Me: "California. And there's nothing
satanical about it really."

Somewhere along the line here, the waitress
noticed my predicament -- but these guys
probably outweighed her by 600 pounds, so
all she did was look at me sympathetically
and run off into the kitchen.

Native: "Ma'am, I think you're lying. And
we'd appreciate it if you'd leave the
premises now."

Fortunately, the waitress returned that very
instant with my order, and they agreed that
it would be okay for me to actually pay for
my food before I left. While I was at the
cash register, they amused themselves by
talking to each other.

Native #1: "Do you think the police know
about these devil computers?"

Native #2: "If they come from California,
then the FBI oughta know bout 'em."

They escorted me to the door. I tried one
last time: "You're really blowing this all
out of proportion. A lot of people use this
`kind of computers.' Universities,
researchers, businesses. They're actually
very useful."

Big, big, BIG mistake. I should have
guessed at what came next.

Native: "Does the government use these devil
computers?"

Me: "Yes."

Another BIG boo-boo.

Native: "And does the government pay
for 'em? With our tax dollars?"

I decided that it was time to jump ship.

Me: "No. Nope. Not at all. Your tax
dollars never entered the picture at all. I
promise. No sir, not a penny. Our good
Christian congressmen would never let
something like that happen. Nope. Never.
Bye."

Texas. What a country.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 02-07-2001).]

Magwitch · 02-07-2001 01:58AM

I think the issue is warped by one single preconception and that is that all predominintly white, middle class towns or cites are the same.

If she wanted to make a statement (which I doubt) she could wear the same tee-shirt in Iran replacing the word "God" with "Allah" etc. See how far she would get.

As it is, many towns in Americas mid-west ban dancing or any form of modern music, and these are not Quakers but regular people. The community in which she chose to be an arrogent twat was backed up by the court suggesting a religious slant to the region anyway.

I welcome the decision of the court. It addresses a bias that has gone unnoticed for a long time and that is that non-rich, middle or working class people have opinions and beliefs that deserve as much respect as any "ethnic" group.

Oh yeah · 02-07-2001 02:32AM

********.

No one should ever be offended by anything ever. Although, people are quite thick when it comes to everything (all of us - in fairness, if there is a god, he musta had a few too many when he had the bright idea of us... and lets not get me started on the dinosaurs...). Offence is caused by other people. And how can you really be certain that other people exist? (I'm talking utter ****e here, but it's late and I'm compelled to continue...).

The shirt's quite representative of the atmosphere and general feeling that Cradle Of Filth give off. Like the photos you see with them all covered in "blood" like vampires. People take it too seriously. So the shirt says God is a ****... And?

I don't see the problem. The picture of a nun masterbating, however may be a little out of place in a mall floating with uptight gits. And it is an insult. It insults everything that Catholicism is, about resisting temptation yadayada. That in my opinion is "too much". When you have messages as clear as that on clothing you must be conscious that you are forcing your opinion on people. If they see you, they see the nun. Frankly, I think it's a grand shirt, but (on the off chance that the rest of the world does exist...) you have to take the reactions of others into account.

I'm sorta stradling the fence here. It is a grey area. Can you say what you want and people can take a running ****, or should you be careful and consider the consequences? Or somewhere in the middle?

Dani Filth... I expect he'd laugh about now.

Mebbe it's best to wear regular t-shirts that say something unimflamatory like "Sucking corporate **** since 199.." nope, that won't do at all.

**** this, as I said people shouldn't get offended by other people's opinions. I've been insulted, but never really hurt by it. I don't take offence, 'cause frankly everyone's a muppet bar Tom. Tom's logic, that..

Life is like a pyrotechnics display. You've got to stand back and let it happen, othwerwise you're are sincerely bollocked....

thegreensock.com

Can you feel the love?

DadaKopf · 02-07-2001 02:34AM

It's the big conflict isn't it. Respect for the law's legitimacy versus the right to oppose something you see as unjust. Any responsible citizen ought to be vigilant against oppressive laws/legal actions.

But in fairness, whoever was wearing this Cradle of Filth t-shirt wasn't making a political statement, he/she was just wearing it to get a reaction and in anyone's book, that's kinda dumb - it leaves you with no argument.

I don't care about the fine, but destroying the t-shirt, that's the invasion of private property. I know it seems flimsy but there's nothing wrong with enforcing a decree that it can only be worn in private.

The whole thing is bleedin dumb anyway.

_CreeD_ · 02-07-2001 06:08AM

Just a question of ideal vs. reality. In a perfect world we should all be mature enough to ignore anyone who sets out to be sensationalist by being insulting. We should be free to say anything, and accept that others will say many things we hate with a vengeance. But the world doesn't work that way.
Wearing the T-shirt was unrealistic and stupid, destroying it was oppressive and unfair. Take your pick of evils.

A few analogies have been made here to get past our naturally ingrained bias for christianity. What about a T-Shirt that says "Jesus Saves!"? Ever see a Jew ddemand one of these extremely blasphemous shirts destroyed? Nope. The intention behind the slogan may be different but it is basically as bad in the context of their religion as the above.
Mind you if you wore it in Israel you would be stoned if you walked into the wrong area.

C B · 02-07-2001 08:13AM

Originally posted by Shinji:

Freedom of speech and expression (which, I ought to remind you, is NOT enshrined in the constitution of most countries, Ireland included...) means you should be allowed to say what you want, when you want.

According to article forty, section six, paragraph one, line one of the Irish Constitution the State guarantees "The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions." However this right is qualified by the following " the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence"
so this incident would probably be illegal in Ireland.

Now that I've cleared up that blatant piece of misinformation (from a professional journalist

) I'll return to the more general question at hand.

In my opinion nobody should have the right not to be offended. Such a right would be conservative and reactionary in the extreme and would essentially remove the right to free expression. I think that people should be allowed to say, think or wear anything they want People should only be held responsble for their actions not their beliefs.

That does not take away from the fact that this woman was a complete muppet, but so are lots of people. we simply can't go around arresting and fining every cretin.

Lighten up live and let live because the more these people try to limit the right to free expression the more outrageous peole will become. If society tolerated such behaviour it would lose it's shock value and nobody would do it.

When my son (6) is cranky and says a bad word to **** me off I laugh at him and he soon realised that he wasn't going to get the desired result.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 08:38AM

No-one really wants freedom of speech. I think the police & courts were perfectly correct in stopping this woman and fining her (although incorrect in the destruction of her property).

Oh - you do believe in Freedom of Speech? Which version? True "freedom to say what you want without reprisal"??? Including incitement to hatred? Slander? Promotion of paedophilia? Need I continue?

The wiccans (at least, I think its of wiccan origin) have an ideal which states that "and it hurt no-one, do what you will". This is obviously quite vague, but it sets the basic idea......you can do/say/write what you like, as long as it is not causing harm (mental or physical) to yourself, or anyone else.

The offensiveness of that woman's t-shirt is a good example. It was causing distress, and so, it was correct that she be sanctioned. Now, you may say that the police should just have asked her not to wear it, but I can see their point. Plus, from the short passage quoted, we dont know if (for example) she was asked not to wear it and refused, which is what led to the court case.

As for the destruction of the item....I dont think that is appropriate, as I would still support the right to wear such attire in a private setting. The destruction of it seemed a bit petty to me.

jc

C B · 02-07-2001 09:38AM

Originally posted by bonkey:

The offensiveness of that woman's t-shirt is a good example. It was causing distress, and so, it was correct that she be sanctioned.

So you believe that people should have the right not to be offended. Surely then telling a bigot that all men are born equal will cause offence and should not be allowed.
If wearing a "**** are ****s" t-shirt in Haarlem is wrong is wearing a "Black Power" t-shirt in Alhabama wrong?

Challenging the sensibilities of others is one of the most important features of a healthy democracy.

Slander is illegal because it is not the experssion of opinion it is the presentation of false facts.

The promotion of paedophilia/hatred. If you are asking somebody to engage in illegal activity this is not freedom of expression it is in itself an illegal activity.

However to admit that you "condone"(insert better word here) an illegal activity is different and that is why I do not like our incitment to hatred laws. people have the right to say what they what and every individual must be responsible for his own actions.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 10:40AM

Originally posted by C B:
If wearing a "**** are ****s" t-shirt in Haarlem is wrong is wearing a "Black Power" t-shirt in Alhabama wrong?

Both shirts are designed to be offensive - one moreso than the other. One promotes hatred and racialism, in an offensive manner. The other promotes a movement which is about oppression and racilism (only with a different "race" having the upper hand).

Give me a break...you obviously missed the "and it hurt no-one" part of my post. Which part of racial oppression hurts no-one?

Challenging the sensibilities of others is one of the most important features of a healthy democracy.

I couldnt agree more. However, there are appropriate ways in which this should be done. There is also a difference between challenging sensibilities and ****ting on them.

people have the right to say what they what and every individual must be responsible for his own actions.

You make it sound as though actions and words are seperated by these two tenets, that they are two seperate issues, and only one of those rules, or the other will ever apply.

Actions and words cannot always be so simply seperated. If I encourage you to do something, am I responsible in any way for your actions? Or am I simply exercising my right to say what I want, and as long as I actually do nothing, I am fine?

In a different thread recently, you challenged people for simply absorbing attitudes from the media, without thinking things through themselves. Are you also saying here that the media is completely blameless for anything arising from what they say/print, as it used its freedom of speech, and the individuals who enacted the crimes must be repsonsible for their actions?

jc

C B · 02-07-2001 01:00PM

I accept and understand your point of view and i fully realize the difficulties inherent in what I am proposing but I believe them to be preferable to censorship.

I would like you to answer my original question,
Should people have a right not to be offended?

bonkey · 02-07-2001 01:38PM

Originally posted by C B:
I would like you to answer my original question,
Should people have a right not to be offended?

Not unilateraly, no.

I do not believe, for example, that it would make sense to say that nothing was permissible in a public place which caused offence to *someone*, becuase then almost everything could fall into that category. I find teletubbies offensive for example...should that mean kids cant carry them in public anywhere, just in case I might walk along? I dont think so.

On the other hand, i believe (going back to our original topic) that the t-shirt case in Australia was valid and fair...

Like anyone else, I fall into the trap of where to draw the line. I would like not to have to draw one, but recognise that one must be drawn. The question is where we can draw it so that it best serves society....offering a balance between protection (the right not to be offended) and freedom (the right to say/show what you want).

As I said before, I tend to fall on the side that you can allow most things (within society's bounds) but you should not be abusive or hurtful to others. The t-shirt case which started this off was about abusive mterial.

Where does abusive stop, and ridicule or humour start? Thats the problem. This is where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law boil down to personal interpretation....which is far from ideal as personal interpretations will always differ.

jc

C B · 02-07-2001 01:54PM

So lets not draw the line their then.

Lets not give people the right not to be offended by somebody else's opinion.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 02:12PM

Originally posted by C B:
So lets not draw the line their then.

Lets not give people the right not to be offended by somebody else's opinion.

Fine. Rephrase to say that everyone has the right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. Yes?

However, I will still maintain that society needs delimiters which control where it is acceptable to voice an opinion, and in what way that opinion should be voiced. This is not the ideal, but as we have already (I think) agreed, in the real world we need limits on the implementation of this, as some people (notably the young) cannot be held fully responsible for their actions.

I support someone's right to an opinion I find offensive. I do not support their right to present an opinion in an offensive manner wherever they see fit.

C B · 02-07-2001 02:36PM

I think we agree in principle and recognoise the difficulties in implementing that principle.

Where we disagree is in regard to how these difficulties should be dealt with. You seem to believe that the state will be able to legislate in a manner which will allow for the common sense application of the principle.

I on the other had do not beleive the state to be able to do so and moreover would not trust it's officers to do so if they could.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 02:55PM

Originally posted by C B:
You seem to believe that the state will be able to legislate in a manner which will allow for the common sense application of the principle.

I on the other had do not beleive the state to be able to do so and moreover would not trust it's officers to do so if they could.

I believe the state *has* to legislate in an *attempt* to allow for the commone sense application of the principle. Like you, I also have very little faith in their ability to successfully do so. This does not mean that they should not try.

Oh - for anyone still reading this...here are two interesting reads...

http://www.cotse.com/runningcotse.html
http://www.cotse.com/abusepolicies.html

Two related articels which show how freedom of speech (almost unregulated) gets treated. The guy who wrote it (maintainer of cotse) is very supportive of free speech. Its interesting to see how he has been treated.

jc

C B · 02-07-2001 03:02PM

Originally posted by bonkey:

Oh - for anyone still reading this...here are two interesting reads...

I think they all left along time ago

Although there may still be a few snoozing in the corners.

Karl Hungus · 02-07-2001 06:29PM

WOW!!! Now this really is an interesting conversation!

Personaly, I'd tend to agree with Belesarius and Oh Yeah...

But, I do think that I'll have to tell you something.

Did you know that that particular T-Shirt design is a recognised work of art?
It's certified by the British Museum Of Art!

Bet you didn't know that!

The Artist who designed it (I can't recall his name) has done many works for Cradle of Filth, MANY of which has gone on to be recognised works of art.

The artwork he did for the 1996 V Empire EP for an example...

Generaly, Cradle Of Filth is possibly one of the most artistic bands there is.
For their 2000 album Midian, they got renouned surealist J.K. Potter to do the artwork... Easily some of the most bizzare art I've seen in recent years...

But the T-Shirt in question is actualy far more artistic than you'd think...

Entitled "Vestal Masturbation", the T-Shirt depicts a Nun, pleasuring herself.
Now, as Nuns have taken an oath (Or something to that effect, I don't know too much about it), they are selebate(SP?), and inherently "Married To Jesus."
The Nun is basicaly expressing her pyshical love for Jesus in the only way she can.
Hence the term: "Jesus is A ****."

Whether this makes the design either more or less offensive, it is far more inteligent and artistic than a the simple "DUMBASSED SLOGAN" most people take it for.

I think I've said my piece for now...

This has been a EXTREMELY good discussion!
Thank you all!

C B · 02-07-2001 11:27PM

Originally posted by bonkey:

In a different thread recently, you challenged people for simply absorbing attitudes from the media, without thinking things through themselves. Are you also saying here that the media is completely blameless for anything arising from what they say/print, as it used its freedom of speech, and the individuals who enacted the crimes must be repsonsible for their actions?

Yes I am. Can you point out the perceived incongrueity between these two statements? People should always be responsible for their own actions. Saying that somebody else "made" me do it by voicing their opinions is a kop out.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 11:59PM

Originally posted by C B:
Yes I am. Can you point out the perceived incongrueity between these two statements? People should always be responsible for their own actions. Saying that somebody else "made" me do it by voicing their opinions is a kop out.

I fully agree. For a grown adult to blame the paper for enticing them to do something is the shifting of responsibility.

But what about a minor? A youth? A child?

Do you believe that they too are responsible for their actions in entirety, despite their age? And if so, then why do we have the concept of coming of age - a legal status where you become an adult?

I always thought that legal recognition of adulthood was recognition that you had reached the stage where you are now a responsible adult....you are now fully accountable for your actions to the fullest extent of the law. Is this correct?

If it is, then you cannot reconcile that with the dissemination of uncensored information in a public arena, trusting people to make up their own minds, as you are also targetting those who, BY LAW, are not judged to be mature enough to be able to do so.

You can pull extreme conclusions from this, but to do so is unnecessary, as I think you get the point.

Much like your stance on the death penalty, in theory I agree with the complete lack of censorship, and the complete freedom of speech (accompanied by the requirement to accept responsibility for your own actions), whcih is my understanding of what you are proposing.

In practice, I think it would require a Utopian society in order to be able to work correctly, and in such a society, such rules would be meangingless anyway.

jc

Clintons Cat · 06-07-2001 03:40AM

Didn't a picture made out of elephant dung and a stained bed win the turner prize?
Just because something is art does not make it less offensive.Perhaps if i scanned a picture out of the poisonous muchroom put it on a t shirt and wore it around cricklewood it would be acceptable?After all it is it is far more inteligent and artistic than a the simple "DUMBASSED SLOGAN" most people take it for.
Saying oh its Art so i thought it would be OK is just a cop out.

*** So much for free speech! *** Or... Free Speech for us, not you!

Comments

* So much for free speech! * Or... Free Speech for us, not you!