Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

12357…16

Comments

  • #122
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #123
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    I think the myth should stop being resorted to that the only time people get offended is when they are disagreed with. It's very intellectually dishonest.


  • #124
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Look at it this way, if it were illegal for an employer to fire said employee for that reason, the clients would understand this and wouldn't take their continued employment as an endorsement of their opinions.

    The employer when confronted by their Dubai associates could hold their hands up and say "we have freedom of speech in Ireland there's nothing we can do".


  • #125
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Azalea wrote: »
    I think the myth should stop being resorted to that the only time people get offended is when they are disagreed with. It's very intellectually dishonest.

    When do people get offended by things they agree with?


  • #126
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Would you make any distinction between an employee airing such views on their own time & using their own private account vs someone doing so during work time &/or using say a company email/twitter handle?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    When do people get offended by things they agree with?
    As if it can only be one or the other. People get offended by cruel things being said to them, e.g. people recently spoke here about being ridiculed over family members committing suicide. That's hardly a case of just "disagreement".


  • #128
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Azalea wrote: »
    As if it can only be one or the other. People get offended by cruel things being said to them, e.g. people recently spoke here about being ridiculed over family members committing suicide. That's hardly a case of just "disagreement".

    I don't think anyone is arguing for the right to ridicule people who have committed suicide. Even if the right were protected it's not one that many would use. Not really a free speech issue. When we talk about offence and free speech we generally mean people getting offended at statements made on a topic under discussion and taking general statements personally.

    Listen to the long winded set-up that this Labour rat goes through to reframe what Peter Hitchens says as a personal insult against herself and her family. The irony of her outrage is that she later had to resign for making offensive tweets about working class English people.



  • #129
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #130
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    I think we should be allowed to say whatever we want if we are prepared to take the consequences of that speech. With rights come responsibilities. Eg I could tell people that their children are ugly but I might get punched in the face..
    Banning free speech so as not to offend is silly and frankly beneath us allbut maybe we could upgrade how much we consider speech as a mitigating factor in circumstances of that nature. Also we have the power to ignore,which is underused and underappreciated. If what is said is too far and complaints are made these should be dealt with on our car by case basis. Banning offending anyone is fascist and gives fuel to silly views by oppressing them, we are a contrary people and if your opinion is banned you will shout louder and escalate to crazy sometimes to be heard.
    I am unimpressed with the illiberal attitudes from outwardly liberal groups. Free speech only if you are singing from the same hymnsheet is worthless and universities especially needed be more open to dissenting voices or what chance is there for the rest of society to get pulled into this orwellian groupthink.


  • #131
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What do you think of this case? A company decided that the views of an otherwise good employee didn't suit their image & so sacked him. I'm no lawyer so can't really comment on the court's finding in that context but agree philosophically on the distinction between the man's private beliefs & what he did on the job.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    c_man wrote: »
    Don't take this as a disagreement, but as someone who spent far too long in college I do wonder what the hell you are on about?! Maybe it's due to spending time mainly in STEM areas but I don't see what you mean. If anything (in those areas), industry and private sector guidance is badly needed imo. Are you talking about the US?

    Outside of the classroom, the only censorship (or attempts at) I saw were by students protesters shutting down talks/visits by what they saw as controversial figures (e.g. Israeli ambassador, Bertie Ahern, random academics with views outside the Irish mainstream). Not that I disagree with protesting these people but I could never reconcile with the hardcore element that other voices/opinions should not even be allowed on campus.
    It happens in the US to a far greater degree, and some fields will be more subject to this kind of political interference than others, but attempts to use monetary influence to curtail academic freedom and free speech, are a definite threat - and there is a direct effort to control economic teaching in colleges in the US:
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680 (in this case, from someone tied to massive economic propaganda networks)
    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/freedoms-ring/Content?oid=3133482 (same people, even trying to influence philosophy teaching)
    http://www.caut.ca/news/2015/01/28/report-uncovers-academic-freedom-violations-at-the-university-of-manitoba

    If you want to see who has a potential influence on your university/college and its teaching, follow the money. See who is funding the university, and where they may have a stake in influencing teaching there - this kind of corrupting influence is something that definitely happens.


  • #133
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What do you define as rabid? If he's simply stating an opinion which he can defend then Microsoft should be forced to protect his right to freedom of speech. In forcing Microsoft's hand in this the terrorists threats would be redundant and so they likely would never be made in the first place. The only reason they make threats is because they think they'll get their way. If you remove that possibility there likely wouldn't be any threats.


  • #134
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Custardpi wrote: »
    What do you think of this case? A company decided that the views of an otherwise good employee didn't suit their image & so sacked him. I'm no lawyer so can't really comment on the court's finding in that context but agree philosophically on the distinction between the man's private beliefs & what he did on the job.

    There was an even worse case of a well regarded doctor being forced to resign for debating with his colleagues the point that anal sex was unhealthy. A reasonable medical position since there are health risks associated with it. The idea that the medical profession could be corrupted by identity politics is worrying indeed.


  • #135
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    If that's what you believe, then you don't support free speech, and can't really make any legitimate claim to - simple as that. You support private regulation of public speech.

    Simply as a free speech issue, a company that did that should be liable to getting sued.


  • #136
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #137
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sF5XBSvXlU

    I think this man is brave enough to express his opinion in the form of leafleting (assuming his leaflets are legal, I haven't seen them). It would be a shame if he had to fear he might lose his livelihood over this as well as potentially his life. The people threatening him are scum of the earth, and if what he's saying offends scum of the earth then it's surely worth saying. I would like to live in a society where his employers would support his right to free speech.


  • #138
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    orubiru wrote: »
    Yet, history teaches us that when those who have power disagree with those without power the powerful will often threaten the right to free speech in order to silence that disagreement.

    Let's say we apply your logic in the case of Chinese journalist Gao Yu. She claims her right to free speech is threatened because she's just unhappy that the Chinese government disagrees with her. Really?

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/china-jails-journalist-gao-yu-71-accused-of-leaking-state-secrets-1.2180179

    "A Chinese court has jailed the 71-year-old journalist Gao Yu for seven years after she was found guilty of leaking an internal Communist Party document to foreigners, part of a growing clampdown on free speech in China."

    You do realise I was talking about my experience, right? I mean there's no way you could know this for sure but I've actually never jailed anyone for disagreeing with me.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Look, it seems to me like when the right to free speech of someone you personally disagree with is threatened then you are quite happy to dismiss it. "Oh, you're just whining about free speech because you don't like people disagreeing with you". Am I right?

    That's a hell of an accusation. care to back it up with an example?
    orubiru wrote: »
    I assume you would not be so dismissive if it was an opinion that you happen to agree with that was being silenced?

    If there are two sides in a disagreement and one of those sides is being silenced, how can you just shrug your shoulders and say they are just getting upset because they don't like to be disagreed with? Clearly they are annoyed that they are being silenced.

    You are basically looking at a situation where someone is being denied their right to an opinion and saying "oh shut up you".

    I never said a word about anyone being silenced.


  • #139
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sF5XBSvXlU

    I think this man is brave enough to express his opinion in the form of leafleting (assuming his leaflets are legal, I haven't seen them). It would be a shame if he had to fear he might lose his livelihood over this as well as potentially his life. The people threatening him are scum of the earth, and if what he's saying offends scum of the earth then it's surely worth saying. I would like to live in a society where his employers would support his right to free speech.

    What if the leaflets aren't legal? What if the leaflets are disseminating false information and are libelous? What if the company that employs him regularly works with the Muslim community? What if he poses a security risk to the people who employ him and others in the company that don't share his views? Should the company and by extension the rest of their employees suffer if this man's actions negatively impact on their business?


  • #140
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    What if the leaflets aren't legal? What if the leaflets are disseminating false information and are libelous? What if the company that employs him regularly works with the Muslim community? What if he poses a security risk to the people who employ him and others in the company that don't share his views? Should the company and by extension the rest of their employees suffer if this man's actions negatively impact on their business?

    It won't be his actions since he's only expressing an opinion. It will be the actions of the scumbags who retaliate. Be careful not to blame the victim. I think you're so accustomed to freedom of speech being met with violence that you now see violence as the natural result of freedom of speech. It's not natural at all.


  • #141
    Canadel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?
    Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc.

    Hate speech. Speech I hate.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    If that's what you believe, then you don't support free speech, and can't really make any legitimate claim to - simple as that. You support private regulation of public speech.

    Simply as a free speech issue, a company that did that should be liable to getting sued.[/quote]
    Add your reply here.
    Either that or allow companies to fire people for whatever personal reasons you want. Within reason and with proper severance guidelines


  • #143
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Of course they can ask.


  • #144
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    If that's what you believe, then you don't support free speech, and can't really make any legitimate claim to - simple as that. You support private regulation of public speech.

    Simply as a free speech issue, a company that did that should be liable to getting sued.

    The right to free speech doesn't come with freedom from consequence and it's ridiculous to suggest it should.


  • #145
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    The right to free speech doesn't come with freedom from consequence and it's ridiculous to suggest it should.

    As far as I'm concerned, the legal right to free speech should include protection from professional retribution for that speech. Otherwise speech is not free, it is controlled by employers rather than the government.


  • #146
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sF5XBSvXlU

    I think this man is brave enough to express his opinion in the form of leafleting (assuming his leaflets are legal, I haven't seen them). It would be a shame if he had to fear he might lose his livelihood over this as well as potentially his life. The people threatening him are scum of the earth, and if what he's saying offends scum of the earth then it's surely worth saying. I would like to live in a society where his employers would support his right to free speech.


    Yeah, like the leaflets you used get at DUP events about the evils of papism. Sure what could go wrong when a minority get demonised year in year out? I can think of no historical precedents whatsoever.


  • #147
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #148
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yeah, like the leaflets you used get at DUP events about the evils of papism. Sure what could go wrong when a minority get demonised year in year out? I can think of no historical precedents whatsoever.

    So long as they're not openly advocating attacks on Catholics surely the Free Presbyterians or other groups should be able to disagree with any other belief system they so choose. If it's a core tenet of your belief system that the Pope is the Antichrist or whatever your right to say so should outweigh Catholic wishes to silence those beliefs.


  • #149
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    The reaction to that fella who landed the Moon on an asteroid was way over the top, but free speech must surely include the right to express how much of a precious little offended snowflake you are. As has been said, what should happen when people overreact is simply that they be told to feck off, rather than pandered to.


  • #150
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Custardpi wrote: »
    So long as they're not openly advocating attacks on Catholics surely the Free Presbyterians or other groups should be able to disagree with any other belief system they so choose. If it's a core tenet of your belief system that the Pope is the Antichrist or whatever your right to say so should outweigh Catholic wishes to silence those beliefs.

    They weren't disagreeing with the catholic belief system in a way that distinguished beliefs from followers. The North didn't end up a sectarian hell hole because of overly nuanced preaching I'm afraid. There was a somewhat bizarre interview with Paisley before he died when he talked about being removed as head of the church he founded, and complained about many of the remarks made and reasons been given for it being "sectarian". Imagine that - you beat a drum for over fifty years and people still march to its beat even when you've stopped playing it.

    tl'dr - We've been here before, no need to repeat history.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    ush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    Some people just want the right to say whatever they want and never get called on it.


Advertisement