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

Azalea wrote: »

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.

For me, speaking in terms of "limits" is dodgy territory since it allows people to argue "well we limit free speech for reason X, why not limit it for reason Y? No such thing as free speech you know!:pac: " Rather we should recognise that there are competing rights, which push against the right to speech & which in some circumstances may outweigh it. Exactly how much legal power one gives to the each of the many competing rights in a society is probably something that will never be decided permanently.

For me (I'm speaking purely philosophically here, rather than legally) an important competing right is the right to go about one's daily business without living in fear. If someone is deliberately targetting you to intimidate & harrass you this is obviously detrimental to that right. This could certainly result from someone publically using a term directed against you which is outlawed under legislation but it could also result from simply aggressive & generally insulting behaviour. Someone simply using a bad word or an idea which you happen to find offensive doesn't really cover that in my opinion, unless they force their views upon you.

As regards the "Kike" comment I'd certainly regard that as pretty vile language & would be disgusted if anyone I knew used it. If however someone simply uses it in a private conversation or through another medium (print, online etc) whose owners have chosen to allow such language then I believe that in the interests of liberty it should be allowed, however abhorrent I might regard it to be. So long as you're not intimidating individuals (e.g. shouting "Kike!" through the letterbox of your Jewish neighbour) the balance of those two competing forces should fall on the side of free expression.

A belief in free expression isn't really worth much unless one is prepared to extend it to those ideas which one finds most objectionable.

Sorry, those scarequotes shouldn't be there on misrepresented or radicals - it was a previous version of the post.

Pseudorandom wrote: »

I really think it's a dangerous and all too common failing to strawman the people who are on the other side of a debate to you. The reality right now is that most reasonable people fall somewhere in the middle of these dichotomies. The issue is the the loud fringes who somehow become the representatives of their sides in the media, thus pushing the middle's further and further to the edges in reaction to what are obviously nonsense views. Then both sides get annoyed because they're being "misrepresented" by "radicals".

I agree with the need to avoid this, but the answer to this divide is for people with opposing ideas to discuss them. Unfortunately those who favour "safe spaces" for their viewpoints, & "no platforming" for those who disagree with them are explicitly rejecting the idea of debate or competing ideas. They may be only a fringe as you argue but they can often be very influential.

Custardpi wrote:

I agree with the need to avoid this, but the answer to this divide is for people with opposing ideas to discuss them. Unfortunately those who favour "safe spaces" for their viewpoints, & "no platforming" for those who disagree with them are explicitly rejecting the idea of debate or competing ideas. They may be only a fringe as you argue but they can often be very influential.

I don't think people who ask for safe spaces are necessarily on the fringe. I think they can be a valid and useful thing. But, I think people who ask for safe spaces in (for example) college classes which might involve discussing controversial things are on the fringe. There is a difference.

Like, I'm looking at the Chris Gayle thread right now, (which is frankly depressing). I'm not saying people are wrong to express their opinions, and they obviously have and are excercising the right to do so, but if you were a woman in a male dominated arena, it would be nice to have a place where you could just say "god, what an asshole, reminds me of this other guy who tried to hit on me in my job" without instantly being shouted down by the charge of the MRW brigadiers. I'm not saying everywhere should be safe spaces, but I don't think there should be none either.

Had a read of the Chris Gayle thread (never heard of the guy & have no interest in the sport so couldn't care less about what he said) & saw no examples of anyone being "shouted down", just some robust disagreement with the typically earthy use of language one expects from AH. I think you do women a disfavour by implying that they would be driven out of a thread by that. Such debate, so long as it doesn't descend into intimidating individuals is perfectly healthy in my view. A "safe space" type thread, where discussion of the incident was limited to posts like "Chris Gayle is an asshole!" "Yes, I agree" "So, true!" "Me too!" "Nail on the head there op" without any opposing voices allowed would only serve to infantilise the participants. If people want to create spaces (as opposed to taking them over) where it works like that then fair enough they can, I just don't view it as being the best approach to understand an issue.

Custardpi wrote:

Had a read of the Chris Gayle thread (never heard of the guy & have no interest in the sport so couldn't care less about what he said) & saw no examples of anyone being "shouted down", just some robust disagreement with the typically earthy use of language one expects from AH. I think you do women a disfavour by implying that they would be driven out of a thread by that. Such debate, so long as it doesn't descend into intimidating individuals is perfectly healthy in my view. A "safe space" type thread, where discussion of the incident was limited to posts like "Chris Gayle is an asshole!" "Yes, I agree" "So, true!" "Me too!" "Nail on the head there op" without any opposing voices allowed would only serve to infantilise the participants. If people want to create spaces (as opposed to taking them over) where it works like that then fair enough they can, I just don't view it as being the best approach to understand an issue.

I would like to repeat that I never said the Chris Gayle thread should be a safe space. I do think there are a bunch of people posting in that thread who haven't experienced the same kind of thing happening to them and don't understand how that kind of constant bull**** can grind you down. "shouted down" I agree was a bad term to use, I just mean that more and more in after hours these days there seems to be a real backlash against any sort of thread involving women talking about sexism. It's not about infantilising people, it's about giving people the space to talk about issues that are very often very controversial, but very personal to the people talking about them. Like the whole point of my hypothetical "safe space" Chris Gayle thread, is to allow the lively discussion that is going on in the after hours thread, but also to have a (different) thread about people talking about personal instances of sexism in the workplace they've experienced without having to constantly defend themselves against bull**** like :

This story is the most pathetic thing I've heard in quite a while. Some bimbo airhead who only got her job because of her looks gets hit on camera, ohhh the humanity. And yet theres a video of her hitting on some male model and nobody cares. The SJW Brigade outdone themselves here.

Anyway, sorry, I was using that thread as an example, but it's dragging this thread off topic.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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.

That's interesting. To a point I would say that's true. There are also people in the media industry who make careers out of being offended and who help to blow these things out of all proportion.

The media is powerful and impossible to control. There will always be a few desperate people scraping the barrel in search of breaking into the business. Once any report or tweet is out there about any of these 'ism's then it snowballs. Everyone has an opinion. As soon as these things go viral then significant broadcasters and journalists are forced to weigh in too.

dirtyden wrote: »

Someone landed a comet on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How did this slip by me last year?

I actually don't believe in free speech either. I don't think people should be allowed freely incite hatred or insult or intimidate others without consequence.

There is a balance between free speech and hate speech and rightfully so. In a human rights context if for example someone distributed a leaflet saying Murder all Irish people in the name of Virgin Mary then that person shouldnt have free speech rights because a) they are inciting hatred and violence against Irish people b) Irish peoples rights to safety are being infringed.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

You don't have a right to free speech in Ireland. You've seen too many American TV shows.

You do actually

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives you a right to freedom of expression as does Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Obviously these rights are limited where is extreme hate speech for example in Ireland you couldnt incite murderous hate speech under 1989 law.

Kev W wrote: »

In my experience the majority of people who claim their right to free speech is being threatened are just unhappy that they're being disagreed with.

This is the most ironic thing I have read in weeks.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is limited and rightfully so. There isnt an absolute freedom of speech even in America. There needs to be some limitations where the human rights of others collide with the right to freedom of expression. Your comparison Queen Elizabeth and Shakespeare is strange and I dont see why you introduced that.

The other thing is States are obliged under international human rights law to prohibit hate speech. Remember the fundamental parts of human rights are around individuals having dignity and equality and hate speech can often remove that in a fundamental way. Balancing human rights so the freedom of expression and the right to dignity and equality are protected can be difficult and is difficult. Sometimes its necessary in order to uphold human rights of equality and dignity and freedom from violence to restrict the rights to freedom of expression.