Tweet
Originally posted by C0ckney
i don't really want to get bogged down in discussing the specific examples you raised (though i would argue that some of those subjects are discussed fairly widely and freely over here). my argument isn't that which you describe, as we all know that some subjects are taboo. personally i feel that 'taboo' subjects should be discussed openly, but i realise that many people feel differently.
i don't really want to get bogged down in discussing the specific examples you raised (though i would argue that some of those subjects are discussed fairly widely and freely over here). my argument isn't that which you describe, as we all know that some subjects are taboo. personally i feel that 'taboo' subjects should be discussed openly, but i realise that many people feel differently.
My point is rather more subtle. Pretty much every human being understands the social rules about what you are allowed to say, how you are allowed to say it and where you are allowed to say it.
For example, you are allowed to say certain things in front of your friends which you aren't allowed to say at work or in front of your grandparents. Similarly, everyone knows the rules about where it is appropriate to raise certain subjects. You can't really reduce these rules into a general set of laws, as they are informal and in some cases vague. Nevertheless, we all have to follow these informal rules of politeness, whether we want to or not. The same document you hand out on the street is a very different thing from the one in an art gallery. Context matters.
Imagine what it would be like if it was acceptable for everyone to say anything anywhere. Social life would undergo a complete collapse. Free speech fundamentalists like to pretend that these rules don't exist or that breaking them whenever you feel like it is somehow OK.
Different cultures have different taboos. It is absolutely no argument to bring up Piss Christ as being equivalent to turban-bomb Mohammed. Controversial representations of Christ have not been a deep society wide taboo in Western nations for a long time now. On the other hand, making fun of or denying the holocaust or aligning oneself with the KKK is seen as completely unacceptable in our society.
Mahmoud Ahamdinejad was right to point out the hypocrisy of the West in crying foul over the holocaust denial conference while defending the cartoons. If such a conference were held in say, Britain, citizens and the government would do everything they reasonably could to disrupt it. Ahmadinejad scored plenty of points in the Muslim world with that conference, while the targets didn't even know why he did it.
my argument is that if people have a problem with certain issues being raised or discussed then there are plenty of legitimate ways for them to express their displeasure.
if this leads to certain issues or views not being aired, then while i may not agree with that, i can accept it, because it has been achieved via legitimate means. like all right thinking people, i reject the use of violence, or the threat thereof, to suppress free speech.
The cartoons on the other hand were a deliberate troll. Much like how a New Zealand student magazine once ran an article called "The Importance of Being Furnaced" (a look at the funny side of the holocaust). In that case the editors were clearly trying to get fired as a publicity stunt.
There's a right place and a right way to discuss these things. When people deliberately break the social rules of discourse and try to hide behind free speech, they ought not to be defended.
how are they different from, say a piece of modern art, the purpose of which is to explore a controversial subject and promote debate.
A common misplaced belief is that a thing remains the same in all contexts. In cultural contexts this is simply not true. Andy Warhol expressed this quite well with his Brillo Boxes and Soup Can. Putting something in a different context changes how we look at it.
i don't think that a cartoon needs to have an in-depth analysis of an issue, it's a wholly inappropriate form for that, but it can raise a subject, break a taboo and invite discussion and criticism.
you have it backwards i'm afraid. free speech starts from being able to say whatever you like. there are some limits on that of course, to use a very hackneyed example, you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, nor can you incite violence against a person, or group of people. it's easy to see why you are not allowed to do such things, and in fact every time that a restriction is placed on free speech, there has to be a clear justification. i fail to see what the justification can be for restricting speech merely because it offends people.
to put it another way, you do not have a right not to be offended.
to put it another way, you do not have a right not to be offended.
What you don't have is an absolute right to be offended. You do however have a relative right not to be offended by people breaking the social rules of discourse. Someone who starts randomly yelling at strangers has broken no law, yet is clearly doing something that he shouldn't.
For what reason do you find it beneficial that people do not have a right to be offended. I don't understand that. Please try some other language to make your point.
)
What he did was offensive not illegal. You are free to say what he did was disgusting, the State is not free to persecute him for it.
Comment