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

Annasopra · 06-01-2016 06:54PM

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.

I would assume KB is talking about humanities and arts rather than STEM

KomradeBishop · 06-01-2016 07:04PM

It can affect STEM as well - but I haven't read up on it enough yet, to know how far it reaches into academia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science

Scientific fields aren't by any means immune to influence, which seeks to censor certain views/scientific-findings.

06-01-2016 08:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See, in theory I don't disagree at all with that. I'm certainly not in favour of wrapping everybody in cotton wool and stamping trigger warnings on everything to protect everyone's delicate sensibilities from ideas that they may find uncomfortable.

What would worry me, however, is when dangerous ideologies cross the line from words to actions. If someone walks around my neighbourhood shouting "KILL ALL MUSLIMS/BLACK PEOPLE/GAYS/<insert demographic of choice here>" it wouldn't concern me too much if I knew that nobody easily-led would actually take up the mantle and follow their suggestion. But there are people out there who are troubled, or easily-led, or filled with hatred and prejudice. Free speech is wonderful if everybody can be trusted to be responsible with, but we all know that this isn't the case.

And yes, I realise that that's an extreme example. But hate speech laws exist for a reason. I don't support restrictions of free speech just because someone may be offended, but it's a different matter in cases where people may be violently attacked or killed as a result of hate speech.

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.

Again, don't disagree with this but the "so long as" is a huge IF. Because people associated with the most hateful and dangerous ideologies are fully capable of threatening and attempting to force their ideas on others.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?

No but "Rape and kill all Catholics/blacks/fat people" might be.

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 08:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, don't disagree with this but the "so long as" is a huge IF. Because people associated with the most hateful and dangerous ideologies are fully capable of threatening and attempting to force their ideas on others.

Absolutely & so it's at this point that the delicate negotiation & counterbalancing of on the one hand person A's right to free expression & on the other person B's right to a peaceful existence begins. Which one has more weight will really depend on the individual context. For an example in practice of these sorts of negotiations (without wanting to get bogged down in NI stuff) see the various summer marches by the Orange Order etc which pass through Nationalist areas & often involve the playing of music which some find offensive. The ability to recognise differences of opinion & to engage in compromise (as opposed to demanding 100% limits to the other side's rights) is generally seen as the key to reducing violence around the July events.

Azalea · 06-01-2016 08:59PM

scdublin wrote: »

People are offended over absolutely everything and therefore people don't want to voice their opinions in fear of offending someone. I shared a link to a report on the attacks in Cologne, and while several people messaged me privately about it saying how shocked they were etc, only one person actually shared what they thought on the post. I know 100% it's because they were afraid they'd offend people.

There was a thread here where people weren't afraid to voice their opinions at all. There has been a hesitancy to report on it for sure, which is a big concern, but it would be incorrect to say nobody voiced their view whatsoever.

The thread here got closed, and people entrenched in a certain view will say it was purely because of the thread being negative about some Muslims, but if that were truly the case, it would have been closed immediately. It was closed because of all the messers and thread-spoilers. It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. People would find themselves less likely to be censored if they expressed their views with a level of diplomacy and tact.

Mass immigration of Muslim men correlates with increased reports of sexual assault - there, I said it. Bet I won't be banned. It's easy not to be banned, just use reasonable language instead of mouthing off.

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

OK, I'll use something more general so: someone publicly states single mothers are pretty much whores, spreading their legs for anyone, deliberately to get benefits.
It's not unreasonable for single mothers (who don't fit into the above category) to be offended. They'd do better not to go off on a mouth-foaming rage, as that will only lower them, but for them to be insulted by such a statement: hardly a sign of being easily offended, and it's not just because someone said something they disagree with - that would be a significant downplaying of it. Such an opinion isn't even valid either, as it's a falsehood. Not all opinions are sacred just because a person is entitled to have them.

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.

How is she a "rat" and why the mention of her membership of Labour? Peter Hitchens is not far from a rat himself - sneery and snide. She did over-react because he wasn't referring to her family or just any single-parent families, but she wasn't entirely way off either.
She didn't make "tweets" by the way, she posted *a* tweet - "Image from #Rochester" was the caption: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rochester-by-election-labour-mp-emily-thornberry-apologises-for-white-transit-van-and-england-flags-9874088.html

I thought the outrage over it was baffling. There is utterly no evidence that "offence" was intended (the fact she is working-class herself reinforces that even further) yet you, advocating free speech, referred to it as offensive just because it suits you in this context? I reckon she may have been simply saying "Look at this EDL loon" but the notion that she was having a go at working-class people seems to be coming purely from inside the minds of those who interpreted it that way.

LordSutch · 06-01-2016 09:02PM

In answer to the OPs question YES.

PC has taken over our lives.

Can't say anything nowadays for fear of being ostracised.

Maximus Alexander · 06-01-2016 09:09PM

LordSutch wrote: »

In answer to the OPs question YES.

PC has taken over our lives.

Can't say anything nowadays for fear of being ostracised.

People not wanting to hang out with you because they don't like the things you say isn't actually a new thing. It's as old as humans.

RustyNut · 06-01-2016 09:19PM

So who should have their right to free speach restricted first, Charlie Hebdo or the westboro baptists. I think both cause huge offense to lots of people?

Azalea · 06-01-2016 09:22PM

LordSutch wrote: »

In answer to the OPs question YES.

PC has taken over our lives.

Can't say anything nowadays for fear of being ostracised.

How nuanced.

RustyNut wrote: »

So who should have their right to free speach restricted first, Charlie Hebdo or the westboro baptists. I think both cause huge offense to lots of people?

I don't know about restricting free speech - I simply would not deem every instance of being offended as to be ridiculed.

Actually the Westboro Baptist Church harass people at funerals - they should not have that right. People should be able to go about any day-to-day stuff without being heckled, let alone a funeral.

PopePalpatine · 06-01-2016 09:40PM

I'm surprised threats of violence (e.g. death/rape threats) haven't been mentioned in this thread yet. Then again, a poster might have included them when talking about inciting violence.

Ulysses Gaze · 06-01-2016 10:23PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleCorp View Post
Would making a statement such as "I don't like catholics/blacks/fat people etc. be considered hate speech?
No but "Rape and kill all Catholics/blacks/fat people" might be.

Don't kid yourself. If you said in any public forum that you didn't like blacks (particularly if you called them blacks and left out people after the word), you'd be called a racist.

And you'd probably be charged for incitement to hatred depending on how and where you said it.

Azalea · 06-01-2016 10:37PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. If you said in any public forum that you didn't like blacks (particularly if you called them blacks and left out people after the word), you'd be called a racist.

Well yeah but it is racist, and the people who'd call them racist would be just exercising *their* free speech. It's still not censorship, just a counter opinion.

And you'd probably be charged for incitement to hatred depending on how and where you said it.

Perhaps, if that is deemed to be incitement to hatred in accordance with the legislation. Not sure it would be though.

RayM · 06-01-2016 11:03PM

walshyn93 wrote: »

The irony of her outrage is that she later had to resign for making offensive tweets about working class English people.

I'd love to know what was 'offensive' about it. Seriously.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/emily-thornberry-resignation-explain-outside-britain

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 11:20PM

RayM wrote: »

I'd love to know what was 'offensive' about it. Seriously.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/emily-thornberry-resignation-explain-outside-britain

It was seen as being a "dog whistle" message i.e. one which is ambiguous but which people of the same mindset as you will see, instantly understand, nod & go "yep, that's true alright".

An equivalent might be say a US Republican (who don't always have the best relationship with minorities) presidential candidate travelling through a city with a high black population, seeing a couple of African American gentlemen enjoying an al fresco meal of fried chicken & beer & snapping a photo of the scene, latter tweeting it with #Atlanta as the tag. The candidate might deny that they were stirring up a reaction by using stereotypes but there would no doubt be some "good old boys" who would hear the "dog whistle" & get a particular meaning from it.

Similarly there were no doubt some people who saw the white van & the flags (both objects with immense symbolic power in English political discourse) & instantly went into sneering mode at the thought of the oafish ignoramus who probably owned them.

Was it Thornberry's intention to provoke such a reaction? Who knows, but it was certainly seen as an attempt to have a snobby in-joke with the London metropolitan elite. The fact that she was MP for Islington (a byword for ivory tower arrogance, though probably unfairly) helped that view of her tweet to spread.

Azalea · 06-01-2016 11:52PM

She grew up in a working-class home herself - it's not comparable in my opinion to a white politician taking pictures of a predominantly black area.

I see no evidence of an intention to offend. "It could be interpreted as" means diddly.

And how far it ended up going was certainly a suppression of free speech.

I do sometimes think *some* of the very vociferous defenders of free speech really just mean protection of the views they hold dear (and which would be of a more... hostile nature).

dodderangler · 06-01-2016 11:53PM

Is being offended and getting annoyed or upset about it really worth putting a dampner on your life ? I couldn't care less about other people's comments or opinions

Azalea · 06-01-2016 11:54PM

dodderangler wrote: »

Is being offended and getting annoyed or upset about it really worth putting a dampner on your life ? I couldn't care less about other people's comments or opinions

Ideally, but sometimes people can't help getting upset at cruelty towards them.

Custardpi · 06-01-2016 11:59PM

Azalea wrote: »

She grew up in a working-class home herself - it's not comparable in my opinion to a white politician taking pictures of a predominantly black area.

I see no evidence of an intention to offend. "It could be interpreted as" means diddly.

And how far it ended up going was certainly a suppression of free speech.

Oh completely but that was how it was spun. The hypothetical American candidate might have aspects of his background which would balance out accusations against him. Thornberry's background didn't necessarily help her since it could be argued that she was abandoning her roots & becoming part of the snobby London set. Whatever her intention with the tweet there were certainly a good few of her political opponents who were like sharks smelling blood when they realised the faux pas she had made & instantly ramped up their outrage-ometers to 11.

Canadel · 07-01-2016 12:05AM

Azalea wrote: »

Ideally, but sometimes people can't help getting upset at cruelty towards them.

A person's right to be upset should never trump people's right to free speech. Both can co-exist and I think that is a theme of this thread. Freedom is the only way forward and good will always triumph over evil. The societies throughout history where it hasn't have been based on totalitarianism regimes which included suppression of ideas and speech.

Azalea · 07-01-2016 12:12AM

Custardpi wrote: »

Oh completely but that was how it was spun. The hypothetical American candidate might have aspects of his background which would balance out accusations against him. Thornberry's background didn't necessarily help her since it could be argued that she was abandoning her roots & becoming part of the snobby London set. Whatever her intention with the tweet there were certainly a good few of her political opponents who were like sharks smelling blood when they realised the faux pas she had made & instantly ramped up their outrage-ometers to 11.

Pure opportunism and nothing more - well, that be politics.

Canadel wrote: »

A person's right to be upset should never trump people's right to free speech. Both can co-exist and I think that is a theme of this thread. Freedom is the only way forward and good will always triumph over evil. The societies throughout history where it hasn't have been based on totalitarianism regimes which included suppression of ideas and speech.

I'm talking about bullying - there's all this talk of how people let themselves be upset etc when there are times the upset is not voluntary.

ush · 07-01-2016 12:13AM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. If you said in any public forum that you didn't like blacks (particularly if you called them blacks and left out people after the word), you'd be called a racist.

And you'd probably be charged for incitement to hatred depending on how and where you said it.

Say something racist and people may call you rasist. The cheek of them!

ush · 07-01-2016 12:15AM

dodderangler wrote: »

Is being offended and getting annoyed or upset about it really worth putting a dampner on your life ? I couldn't care less about other people's comments or opinions

Hmmm....how much do people's prejudices effect your life? Easy not to give a fiddler's when you blend in.

dodderangler · 07-01-2016 12:48AM

ush wrote: »

Hmmm....how much do people's prejudices effect your life? Easy not to give a fiddler's when you blend in.

Blend in? I just have more important things in my life to worry bout like keeping a roof over my family and food on the table to care what some idiot says

ush · 07-01-2016 01:38AM

What if what some idiot says, or prevailing attitudes, impact your ability to keep a roof over your family and food on the table? Or for someone else...

walshyn93 · 07-01-2016 05:32AM

Azalea wrote: »

How is she a "rat" and why the mention of her membership of Labour? Peter Hitchens is not far from a rat himself - sneery and snide. She did over-react because he wasn't referring to her family or just any single-parent families, but she wasn't entirely way off either.
She didn't make "tweets" by the way, she posted *a* tweet - "Image from #Rochester" was the caption: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rochester-by-election-labour-mp-emily-thornberry-apologises-for-white-transit-van-and-england-flags-9874088.html

I thought the outrage over it was baffling. There is utterly no evidence that "offence" was intended (the fact she is working-class herself reinforces that even further) yet you, advocating free speech, referred to it as offensive just because it suits you in this context? I reckon she may have been simply saying "Look at this EDL loon" but the notion that she was having a go at working-class people seems to be coming purely from inside the minds of those who interpreted it that way.

My personal belief is that she's a snide politician with no discernable values or core beliefs. The fact that she resigned without issue is evidence that she was poking fun at her constituents. Again not a freedom of speech issue, she resigned because she was politically damaging to her party and a party has a right to protect its image that way since public opinion is essentially the lifeblood of a party. The implication that anyone who flies an English flag is an EDL loon is a prejudice that sort of disqualifies her from representing that particular constituency.

walshyn93 · 07-01-2016 05:39AM

Azalea wrote: »

She grew up in a working-class home herself - it's not comparable in my opinion to a white politician taking pictures of a predominantly black area.

I see no evidence of an intention to offend. "It could be interpreted as" means diddly.

And how far it ended up going was certainly a suppression of free speech.

I do sometimes think *some* of the very vociferous defenders of free speech really just mean protection of the views they hold dear (and which would be of a more... hostile nature).

Saying she grew up in a working class home is like saying some of my best friends are black. Plenty of working class people look down on other working class people, especially when they become part of the metropolitan bourgeois elite. In fact such people are probably more prone to snobbery than most.

I agree with the second bit. In any other profession I wouldn't agree with her being forced to resign, but she's touring her own constituency and displaying her own prejudice in a subtle though not unnoticed way.

She may have grown up in a council home (which at that time in Britain didn't man much) but by the sounds of it her mother wasn't working class so she didn't have a typical working class upbringing. I doubt her brothers worked on the building sites.

walshyn93 · 07-01-2016 05:41AM

ush wrote: »

What if what some idiot says, or prevailing attitudes, impact your ability to keep a roof over your family and food on the table? Or for someone else...

How on earth would that happen?

BigJackC · 07-01-2016 05:59AM

Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, said police had to "adjust" to the fact that groups of men had attacked women en masse.

Three suspects have been identified, he said, but no arrests had been made.

Scores of women say they were robbed or sexually assaulted by men, reportedly of Arab or North African appearance.

Mr Jaeger also warned that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees.

"What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women," he said. "This is poisoning the climate of our society."

Discussing the migrant crisis on the internet and having a negative view of it, is as bad as a thousand strong gang attacking, groping, sexually assaulting and raping NYE party goers. That's not just "pc gone mad." It's plane mad.

walshyn93 · 07-01-2016 06:03AM

BigJackC wrote: »

Discussing the migrant crisis on the internet and having a negative view of it, is as bad as a thousand strong gang attacking, groping, sexually assaulting and raping NYE party goers. That's not just "pc gone mad." It's plane mad.

Surely these people will be forced to resign. They're all mental.

hatrickpatrick · 07-01-2016 06:39AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not necessarily.
Firstly I should clarify, I don't think non-work related speech outside work should be grounds for firing, and there have been a lot of instances of that happening over the last few years. I don't buy the whole "you represent your employer 24/7" bullsh!t, so if someone works a 9-5 job and tweets something sexist or racist at 10PM on a Saturday night, as far as I'm concerned it should be illegal to fire them. Now, perhaps there should be a compromise here wherein if what you tweet directly impacts your work credentials - for instance, if I'm a doctor and I tweet "Half the time I have no idea what I'm prescribing", then even if I tweet it at 10PM on a Saturday that could perhaps be an exception. But I certainly don't agree with the idea that you should be forced to maintain ideological purity in public when you're not wearing your uniform. It's akin to allowing schools to punish kids when they find out about the kids having been drinking on Saturday night or something, in my view.

Here's an example:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/man-fired-over-fck-her-right-in-the-pssy-tv-confrontation/

I don't care if what he said was offensive, in my view he wasn't at work, wasn't wearing his uniform, his employer should have 100% zero authority over his outside-work activities. Another exception could possibly be made for those who work in figurehead roles - PR, marketing, HR etc - but this guy was an engineer and his lewd comments to a random non-work related reporter very clearly do not impact his ability to do his job.

As I say, without this protection, in my view legal free speech simply switches the role of the oppressor from government to employer.

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

Comments