Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

Custardpi · 05-01-2016 11:34PM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Free speech is incredibly important, just don't he a twit about it. A

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Canadel · 05-01-2016 11:38PM

Custardpi wrote: »

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Hint: Don't enforce it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 05-01-2016 11:39PM

Custardpi wrote: »

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

RayM · 05-01-2016 11:39PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that the amount of people who continually whinge and moan about their lack of free speech is roughly the same as the amount of people who would be much better off keeping their opinions to themselves?

The kind of right-wing dullards whose interest in 'free speech' begins and ends with the 'right' of the excessively privileged to punch downward. My heart bleeds for them.

Custardpi · 05-01-2016 11:42PM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

So you'd be in favour of banning most political satire then?

Permabear · 05-01-2016 11:43PM

This post has been deleted.

mansize · 05-01-2016 11:45PM

jacksie66 wrote: »

While I do not agree with what you say I will fight to the death your right to say it..

would you really though?

Canadel · 05-01-2016 11:46PM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

The difference being talking as opposed to drawing.

RustyNut · 05-01-2016 11:48PM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

I can hear my wise old granny (Rip) saying. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 05-01-2016 11:53PM

Custardpi wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of banning most political satire then?

Lets get the personal opinions out of the way, as if it were important

I am not in favour of banning anyting which would infringe on freedom of speech.

I think that my post may be misinterpreted. It's a difficult one to argue, that's for sure. I just don't see the point in maliciously attacking somebody or group of people by knowingly saying, printing or drawing something offensive in order to get a reaction. It's also not a justification for the reaction, whatever that may be.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 05-01-2016 11:54PM

Canadel wrote: »

The difference being talking as opposed to drawing.

There's a difference in the media, and in this case the message, but if the message is the same, should the method of communication matter?

ush · 05-01-2016 11:54PM

Frank Furedi, the academic leading this campaign, is a crank. You can discuss whether removing a statue of Rhodes is reasonable, but Furedi is not the voice of reason here either.

steddyeddy · 05-01-2016 11:56PM

Canadel wrote: »

Exactly. The public didn't fire them, their employers did. People have a right to say what they want like the two scientists you mention, and others have a right to be offended by what they say and to express that offence. That's how free speech works. Sometimes, like life, it's not fair.

Actually the latter wasn't fired but both were chastised for their speech or actions by the public. Tim Hunt's forced resignation was called "trial by public".

Some idiots wrongfully thought that the scientists did wrong and made a noise until there action. Senior academics are claiming the same.

Canadel · 05-01-2016 11:57PM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

There's a difference in the media, and in this case the message, but if the message is the same, should the method of communication matter?

Of course not. And neither message should be in any way suppressed by the state in a country that calls itself even somewhat progressive.

xband · 05-01-2016 11:57PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Especially since we got rid of that pesky ozone layer. Good dose of pure UV will kill anything!

Canadel · 05-01-2016 11:59PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually the latter wasn't fired but both were chastised for their speech or actions by the public. Tim Hunt's forced resignation was called "trial by public".

Some idiots wrongfully thought that the scientists did wrong and made a noise until there action. Senior academics are claiming the same.

Ah, from your post it implied that both of them were fired. In that case then I retract my previous comment about him, he's not stupid, he's simply a coward.

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 12:04AM

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Lets get the personal opinions out of the way, as if it were important I am not in favour of banning anyting which would infringe on freedom of speech.

I think that my post may be misinterpreted. It's a difficult one to argue, that's for sure. I just don't see the point in maliciously attacking somebody or group of people by knowingly saying, printing or drawing something offensive in order to get a reaction. It's also not a justification for the reaction, whatever that may be.

Which essentially equates (even if that's not the intention) to a desire to wrap people in cotton wool in an attempt to protect them from ideas/statements they disagree with. Even if you personally don't see a "point" in a particular book/article/cartoon/film being produced because some may choose to be offended by its content that's not a good enough reason for it not to be. For me, so long as you don't openly threaten or force your ideas on someone or an identifiable group of people you should be free to say whatever you like. If your ideas/beliefs are wrong they can be challenged by others with more knowledge of the subject. Now obviously that's not the current legal position in Ireland, nor would it be one endorsed by many sites, including Boards.

steddyeddy · 06-01-2016 12:06AM

Canadel wrote: »

Ah, from your post it implied that both of them were fired. In that case then I retract my previous comment about him, he's not stupid, he's simply a coward.

Well you can bet the apology was forced on him. Not as much a coward as the hack who found his shirt offensive and launched a hate campaign against him. Idiots who never made it as a scientist getting jealous.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 06-01-2016 12:06AM

As long as you'r not inciting people to kill others you can pretty much say whatever the hell you like about anyone or anything (as long as it isn't spreading lies which I assume is covered by libel/slander laws) .People can hold whatever ridiculous opinions they want and be allowed to express them.

I've honestly never been offended by one thing I've read or heard.I might have strongly disagreed with it but I've never been offended. I think some people think disagreeing with something is equivalent to being offended.

xband · 06-01-2016 12:09AM

On a more serious note though, free speech (including in the US) is limited to 'within the law'.

Try using foul language on US network television and you'll find out how far American free speech goes.
There has been plenty of censorship over there over the years.

Libel law exists there too, it's just that the bar is somewhat higher, especially since supreme court cases in the 1960s.

Ireland's has freedom of speech, also with limitations. Libel law and a constitutional right to freedom of speech that's VERY far from absolute and could be abused quite easily:

"6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.
"

We could do with something along the lines of the 1st Amendment. Although it would be at least the 36th Amendment here, not quite as sexy.

RustyNut · 06-01-2016 12:09AM

I think I should have the right to say whatever I want and other people should have the right to be offended and say whatever they want back to me.

Azalea · 06-01-2016 12:14AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

As long as you'r not inciting people to kill others you can pretty much say whatever the hell you like about anyone or anything (as long as it isn't spreading lies which I assume is covered by libel/slander laws).

Yeah, free speech doesnt actually exist.

Pseudorandom · 06-01-2016 12:16AM

It's nonsense to say that people being offended is somehow contrary to free speech. A whole part of free speech is the ability to express that you find what someone is saying offensive. I think it's a positive for free speech when people aren't shouted down with arguments like "it's just a joke", "you're too easily offended" and "you're impinging my free speech by expressing your right to free speech by saying you're offended".

The real problem is when we start institutionalising automatic responses to free speech. People should be allowed to say they're offended and not mocked for doing so, but we shouldn't institutionally kowtow to the kind of demand which restrict any discussion for fear that someone somewhere might possibly be offended. There have been some really interesting articles about college professors complaining about not being able to discuss controversial books because of people complaining about triggers etc.

Equally though, we should recognise that if you're in the majority, you may not realise how difficult it can be to speak up if you're in a minority and being marginalised, particularly because of the current (overzealous) backlash against the offenderati.

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 12:21AM

Azalea wrote: »

Yeah, free speech doesnt actually exist.

This is a line often used by those who favour censorship of uncomfortable ideas. A belief in free speech simply means to hold the position that the expression of ideas should be allowed in as open a manner as possible. It is an aspirational stance. Obviously there are other concerns, libel being one of them. However, I would contend that this is where people's rights e.g. the right to free expression vs the right not to be defamed are in competition & need to be negotiated depending on the case & context. Placing immovable limits on what ideas can be expressed however is unhealthy imo & should have no place in a free society.

silverharp · 06-01-2016 12:26AM

Canadel wrote: »

If an employer deems it necessary to fire an employee because of a tumblr mob not liking his shirt, we are in employment hell. Also, the right of that mob to express their views is as important as landing a comet on the moon.

in this case the mob is insane, its the worst of the entitled millennials and they should be laughed off the stage. the sane side of the argument isnt coming up with lists of people to get fired and the insane side cant engage in honest mature debate.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 06-01-2016 12:26AM

Custardpi wrote: »

Which essentially equates (even if that's not the intention) to a desire to wrap people in cotton wool in an attempt to protect them from ideas/statements they disagree with. Even if you personally don't see a "point" in a particular book/article/cartoon/film being produced because some may choose to be offended by its content that's not a good enough reason for it not to be. For me, so long as you don't openly threaten or force your ideas on someone or an identifiable group of people you should be free to say whatever you like. If your ideas/beliefs are wrong they can be challenged by others with more knowledge of the subject. Now obviously that's not the current legal position in Ireland, nor would it be one endorsed by many sites, including Boards.

I almost completely agree with your post. Although some may see a threat in an image such as the one mentioned. I don't mean protecting people from statements or ideas, or anything like that, I guess one should just be considerate of others when expressing an opinion, you can get your point accross without being crass or malicious. Don't get me wrong, I am not offended by these picture or anything of the like, I can just see how somebody may find some things quite offensive. I don't necessarily agree with their points.

Dirty Dingus McGee's first paragraph sums it up perfectly I think.

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 12:30AM

Pseudorandom wrote: »

Equally though, we should recognise that if you're in the majority, you may not realise how difficult it can be to speak up if you're in a minority and being marginalised, particularly because of the current (overzealous) backlash against the offenderati.

While I don't agree that the current backlash against the offense takers is overzealous (if anything it's probably far too tame & complacent) I get what you're saying. I'd counter by saying that efforts to increase the voice & arguments of marginalised groups will ultimately be far more successful & beneficial for them than simply shutting out opposing voices. One of the great things about the internet (or at least that part of it which hasn't been censored by governments) is the great variety of platforms available to previously isolated groups & individuals.

Bulbous Salutation · 06-01-2016 12:40AM

No.

Pseudorandom · 06-01-2016 12:41AM

CustardPi wrote:

While I don't agree that the current backlash against the offense takers is overzealous (if anything it's probably far too tame & complacent) I get what you're saying. I'd counter by saying that efforts to increase the voice & arguments of marginalised groups will ultimately be far more successful & beneficial for them than simply shutting out opposing voices. One of the great things about the internet (or at least that part of it which hasn't been censored by governments) is the great variety of platforms available to previously isolated groups & individuals.

I think "shutting out" is a misleading way of putting it. Twitter storms against whatever is the perceived offensive thing of the moment may just turn in to hatemobs against the offender of the day, but it is still a legitimate expression of free speech, agree with it or not. It's not "shutting out" if more people are saying something than are disagreeing with it, even though that might be the resulting effect.

Sometimes it feels like everyone has divided into camps, one side screeching "SJWs" and "FEMINAZIs" and the other side screaming "BIGOTS" and "PRIVILEGE". There is a middle ground and it's not going to be found either by mocking people who are offended by things or by legislating that only the accepted groupthink of the day may is kosher for discussion.

<off topic>
The quote button seems to be missing for me on boards at the moment - is that happening to anyone else?

Azalea · 06-01-2016 01:59AM

Custardpi wrote: »

This is a line often used by those who favour censorship of uncomfortable ideas.

Not me. Just stating my opinion - if there are limits, then it is not free.

I have no issue with unpalatable views being expressed once backed up.

I do agree with others though that the whole "What about free speech?" thing often comes from people who simply want to be able to say whatever nasty, cruel **** they want, and who do not seem to be concerned about free speech coming from the opposite direction.

Also, this dismissal of people getting offended - I know there are people who totally just seek offence, but how far does the dismissal go? If a Jewish person gets called a ****ing kike, they will likely and understandably get offended - should they be sneered at for their "feelz" being affected? Have they looked for offence/taken offence when really it is the person who has yelled the insult that is responsible.
There are of course situations where it is reasonable to be offended, and no, people should not be able to say absolutely anything they like whatsoever. If people say "But that's not what we mean by free speech", then they're just further demonstrating that there isn't actually free speech.

Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

Comments