SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked on January 7th:
The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports. [...] Kushner, in an email to The Times, said she was withdrawing from the May 5 PEN gala because she was uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo's "cultural intolerance" and promotion of "a kind of forced secular view." Those views, The Times added, were echoed by the other writers who pulled out of the event. Carey told The Times that PEN, in its decision, was going beyond its role of protecting freedom of expression." A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom-of-speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" he said in an email to the newspaper. Novelist Salman Rushdie, a past president of PEN who spent years in hiding because of a fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses, criticized the writers for pulling out, saying while Carey and Ondaatje were old friends of his, they are "horribly wrong."
Glenn Greenwald has written about the controversy over at The Intercept, which is hosting letters and comments written by Deborah Eisenberg and Teju Cole. Greenwald notes:
Though the core documents are lengthy, this argument is really worth following because it highlights how ideals of free speech, and the Charlie Hebdo attack itself, were crassly exploited by governments around the world to promote all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with free expression. Indeed, some of the most repressive regimes on the planet sent officials to participate in the Paris “Free Speech” rally, and France itself began almost immediately arresting and prosecuting people for expressing unpopular, verboten political viewpoints and then undertaking a series of official censorship acts, including the blocking of websites disliked by its government. The French government perpetrated these acts of censorship, and continues to do so, with almost no objections from those who flamboyantly paraded around as free speech fanatics during Charlie Hebdo Week.
From Deborah Eisenberg's letter to PEN's Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, March 26, 2015:
I can hardly be alone in considering Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that satirize Islam to be not merely tasteless and brainless but brainlessly reckless as well. To a Muslim population in France that is already embattled, marginalized, impoverished, and victimized, in large part a devout population that clings to its religion for support, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.
Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not. And yet the staff apparently considered the context of their satire and its wide-ranging potential consequences to be insignificant, or even an inducement to redouble their efforts – as if it were of paramount importance to demonstrate the right to smoke a cigarette by dropping your lit match into a dry forest.
It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible. The point of protecting all kinds of expression is that neither you nor I get to determine what attitudes are acceptable – to ensure that expression cannot be subordinated to powerful interests. But does that mean that courage in expression is to be measured by its offensiveness?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:34PM
Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not.
"It would seem not" ... why? By the looks of it, the magazine specializes on inflaming demographics. Some of them would be marginalized ones. Perhaps one could claim that a decade ago the magazine was more reasonable and sometimes had a useful message. I saw a collection of pictures from the magazine collected over the years. The pictures were getting more aggressive, and the message was getting weaker over time - if present at all. It's much easier to draw dumb, offensive pictures than to creatively laugh at flaws of the society.
It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible.
I take it that Deborah Eisenberg doesn't mind if everyone starts mooning her and her family, because that's freedom of expression that must be indivisible. Or, at least, she'd be OK if crowds of people beat the drums under windows of her house 24/7. Or... will she call police, were that to happen?
Can freedom of expression be absolute? Yes. There is no genetic mechanism that would stop a human from saying certain words. However the freedom of expression has to come together with freedom of other people to express displeasure with your expression. The speaker is not above the listeners.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM
Adding to that, an individual's right ends where the right of another begins.
While I absolutely condemn the killing, I have a similar opinion about the unnecessary provocation of the publication and associated media-hype about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:28PM
As some people have said, the role of satire is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Insulting the ayatollah, members of ISIS or any other person using religion for their own selfish ends absolutely qualifies, kicking the weakest among us does not.
It would be like saying black people in America need to stop going to black churches and forming other black community groups because Sharpton exploits the black experience for his own purposes.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:18PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give. They have already been given vast amounts of respect, its their turn to pony up.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:43PM
the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered
[Citation needed]
Go spread your hate-speech somewhere else, please.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:05PM
There is no hate speech there, just truths. I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
Citation needed?
How about Pew research?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:16PM
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.
Thanks. Any actual citation, or are you going to come up with Fox next?
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
I don't care if you think you have a monopoly on truth, because you don't.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:59PM
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
That particular sentence is about as much "hate speech" as saying the Christian god is a murderous thug (which he is); that is, it isn't. It's just criticizing a religion and the prophets they worship.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:17AM
You mistake criticism for insult.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:28AM
Err... the other way around, of course. It's late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:06AM
He was a proper pedophile. That is not even an insult or criticism, but a fact of scripture.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:54AM
You're limiting the options. It could be:
1) An insult.
2) A criticism.
3) A simple statement of fact.
4) Some combination of these things.
I see no reason to limit the options to two things. Simply stating that their prophet is a pedophile is not necessarily an insult, or only an insult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:26PM
Is there someone here that is Islamic and modding everything down involving the prophet? On a free speech article no less.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:08AM
Would you prefer to see the real deal on liveleak? How about apacheclips? We don't need words. They film it and post it for us.
Those things are nasty enough that nobody should be subjected to seeing them. If you want, you can find them yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:24PM
Wait a second. Someone asks for a link showing Islamic extremists denouncing free speech with death in their own words. I post two sources to find such, and get modded -1 offtopic.
Then what the hell was the topic? To be apologists and pretend people aren't beheaded, burned alive, stoned to death, and worse all on film with explanation by militant Muslims? Such a waste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:53AM
Some people can't handle ugly truths and their behavior to avoid facing such ugliness can seem irrational to an observer.
Feel free to post a link to the affected comment in question next time so modders with points can look it over for themselves - the threads here are getting quite tangled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:47AM
> There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
No, from their own mouths they think killing traitors is called for by sharia law.
Want to bet most Americans think the same thing about traitors too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:56AM
Your comparison is misleading.
An apostate from Islam is the equivalent of an American expatriate. I'd win a bet that most Americans don't want to see American expatriates killed.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:45PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
You are welcome to do exactly that in privacy of your own bedroom. Doing it on TV or in newspapers would be, IMO, foolish. It will gain you nothing, but will create enemies. Go ahead, visit Saudi Arabia, go to a mosque and tell the assembled people what you really think about them and their false god. You'll meet a man with a rare job and a sharp friend the very next Friday.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give.
It's difficult to identify who hit who first, especially when first such conflict happened twelve centuries ago. But do you recall events that led to the Muslim unrest in the 20th century?
With regard to respect, it would be most proper to respect beliefs of a Muslim that hasn't done anything wrong to you and to anyone else as far as you know. He is respecting your beliefs, after all - he will not scold you for failing to pray to Allah, for example. Why do you scold him for praying to his god? I hold a firm and scientifically based opinion that all gods of humanity are invented by the humanity itself. This means that it does not matter who a person prays to, it has only a placebo effect. Do not hate an innocent person, as it only turns him into an enemy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:02PM
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.
In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:15PM
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
This poll does not support the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered".) In fact, the poll states the following:
Muslims generally say they are very free to practice their religion. Most also believe non-Muslims in their country are very free to practice their faith. And among those who view non-Muslims as very free to practice their faith, the prevailing opinion is that this is a good thing.
and:
Few Muslims see conflict between religious groups as a very big national problem. In fact, most consider unemployment, crime and corruption as bigger national problems than religious conflict. Asked specifically about Christian-Muslim hostilities, few Muslims say hostilities are widespread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:16AM
Oop! Another google-expert hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:19AM
The segment of the poll best supporting the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered") is the segment titled Sharia as the Official Law of the Land.
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed.
It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:48AM
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed. It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
I think this conclusion comes from two unrelated facts. First, the respondents directly say that they support Sharia. And then someone else opens a book, reads what Sharia is about, and comes to the conclusion that infidels will be killed or forced to convert (see above.)
However this is a conclusion, and not a direct answer to a question. Obviously, there are not too many countries in the world who can get away with forcing the population to adopt someone else's religion or to be executed. The poll did, actually, ask respondents, and here is their answer:
Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.
Another factor that affects the "Muslims are coming!!1!" fears is the fact that respondents want to use Sharia primarily for resolution of domestic issues. Even punishment of apostates is frowned upon:
Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.
It is definitely true that Sharia is a harsh law. However if people want to be ruled by such a law... every true democrat has to accept their right to choose such a law. It won't apply to others.
If a Muslim does not want to be part of Sharia he has an option of setting his religion aside. Nobody will hunt him down and cut his head off. Certainly he could ask for trouble by flaunting his change of religion. But if he quietly moves to another city, or another state, and arrives to the new location as a non-religious person, or as an adherent of some other religion, who is going to lose her sleep over a new neighbor's affiliation, in a neighborhood that is not obsessed with religion? That would be nearly impossible in the 7th century, as people were tied to their tribe for all their life. They could not move far enough to be forgotten. Today it is trivial. You can easily be forgotten in any apartment building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:54AM
The Pew poll [pewforum.org] was shocking upon its debut as the constant refrain from the mainstream media and talking heads was, "only a tiny, insignifiant percentage of Islam's followers are the type who really believe and obey what is written in the sacred texts of Islam". The poll instead shows massive support for fundamentalist Islam (beheading the infidels, world war until all religion is for Allah, kill those who choose to leave Islam, etc.). It doesn't matter that such support may not even reach majority status - a majority isn't needed to have massive impact on external forces.
While the prior AC was wrong to state that "the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered", the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
Yes, like you, I have also met friendly people who also claim to be Muslim; the existence of such people does not negate the ugly claims reported above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:16PM
Opinion polls are bad science to begin with. Often they suffer from issues like poor representation of the population, biased questions, and the claims of these people can't be verified objectively. Are they simply ignorant of what Sharia law exactly is? I don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:18PM
the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
The USA is in business of exporting "democracy" for about 100 years now, by forcing themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint. As matter of fact, the major grievance of Saudis who hijacked airplanes on 9/11 was US presence in Saudi Arabia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:02AM
Agreed (except that the USA doesn't export rule-by-the-people democracy, but rule-by-the-unaccountable-few oligarchy).
Neither the USA's criminal behavior nor that of individual Muslims excuses the other.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:11AM
While also wrong, this is something very different than
"Infidels" for a Muslim are all non-Muslims. People who abandon Islam are people who stop being Muslims. The vast majority of non-Muslims ("infidels") were never Muslims to begin with (i.e. never abandoned Islam).
Note also that the second paragraph only makes statements about those who favour making Islamic law the official law, without stating what percentage of the population that is (and note that again, it's about killing apostates, not about killing infidels). Therefore the numbers given there are not very useful for determining the opinion of the majority of Muslims. For example, in Hypothetistan, there are a million Muslims, but only ten of them support making Islamic law official law. Nine of those ten also support killing apostates. None of the others support that. Therefore in Hypothetistan, 90% of those who support making Islamic law official also support killing apostates, but only 0.0009% of all Muslims do.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:56PM
Adding to that, an individual's right ends where the right of another begins.
And there is no right to have other people's speech censored because you're offended, so there is no such issue here.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:24AM
So, Lana Shortbread, may I call you that? You think it's ok for me to call you a self-righteous, immature moron, because I can?
Why don't you go outside and insult someone on the street and see what happens. For bonus points, try that with a police officer. I'm sure they'll be very understanding, even if you explicitly mention that you're just stating your own opinion.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:51AM
So, Lana Shortbread, may I call you that? You think it's ok for me to call you a self-righteous, immature moron, because I can?
You're changing the topic. The topic was whether someone has the *right* to say such things, not whether I'm ok with absolutely everything someone might say. Do I think you should have the legal right to say those things? Absolutely. I simply don't hate basic liberties such as freedom of speech.
Why don't you go outside and insult someone on the street and see what happens. For bonus points, try that with a police officer. I'm sure they'll be very understanding, even if you explicitly mention that you're just stating your own opinion.
I'm not quite seeing your point. Are you implying that I'll get beat up or some other such thing? If so, so what? What does being a barbarian prove? Nothing. It doesn't mean I don't/shouldn't have the legal right to say something; it just means the people who assault me simply for saying things they don't like need to be put in jail.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:39AM
I'm not quite seeing your point.
At this point I don't feel like repeating myself, but I'll do it for the sake of completeness: your right ends where another's begins. Go ask a lawyer, what right that is that you would be violating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:01AM
There is no right to "not be offended".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:11PM
I don't feel like repeating myself either, but you have no right to silence other people's speech because you're offended. Your rights are not infringed upon because you're offended. Since anyone could be offended by anything, your position is unworkable.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:11PM
That's not what I'm referring to. You can't go running around insulting people either, Lana.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:56PM
Well, then you're doing a very bad job of communicating your point. When you say that you have no right to X, you're saying that it's permissible for the government to stop you from doing X.
You can't go running around insulting people either, Lana.
What would prevent anyone from doing so?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @05:51AM
Lawsuits, babe. Lots of them. At least in D-A-CH countries. Because, you know, people have a right to not be insulted over there. Don't necessarily know about other parts of the world.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 01 2015, @06:13AM
They don't have freedom of speech, then. Court decisions are enforced by the government.
Because, you know, people have a right to not be insulted over there.
That is anti-freedom to the core.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @11:37AM
That is anti-freedom to the core.
That's your opinion and lots of people will disagree with you.
They don't have freedom of speech, then.
They do, a long as they don't impose their "freedom" on others, like the US Government seems to be doing quite often.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 01 2015, @12:44PM
That's your opinion and lots of people will disagree with you.
If you infringe upon a fundamental right such as freedom of speech, that is pretty much by definition anti-freedom. Every country has plenty of improving to do, and this is one way those countries can be improved.
They do, a long as they don't impose their "freedom" on others
That makes absolutely zero sense. If you "impose" your freedom of speech on others, then you are giving them freedom of speech. Clearly you're referring to the nonexistent right to not be offended, which is a sort of "right" that simply does not exist in any sane country.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:30PM
Clearly you're referring to the nonexistent right to not be offended
In general, it's quite unwise to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people or their actions, if you don't know the well. You're wrong, I'm referring amongst others to the right of bodily and moral integrity. You can go and find some studies on how words can do bodily harm, if you disagree with the notion of moral integrity.
Apparently I lack the facilities to convey my reasoning in a manner that would be understandable to you. But I'll give it another go. From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] (emphasis and commentary added):
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [i.e. also, not cause strife, grief, etc. AKA Treat others in a way that you want to be treated by them. [wikipedia.org]]
Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, and finally:
Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Did I make myself clear? Your rights END where the rights of others begin. Period. End. Of. Story.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:00PM
In general, it's quite unwise to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people or their actions, if you don't know the well.
This conversation is about speech. You keep saying things like 'Your rights end where the rights of others begin.' when it comes to insults and people being offended. I am not assuming anything; I am simply responding to things you yourself have told me. You are obviously pro-censorship and anti-free speech, no matter how you try to butter it up. If this is not what you intended to convey, then you are seriously bad at communicating.
You can go and find some studies on how words can do bodily harm, if you disagree with the notion of moral integrity.
They cannot. Any offense you take is your own doing.
And anyone with a brain disagrees with the extremely subjective and arbitrary notion of "moral integrity" being taken taken into account in the law; it's simply insane, and used to justify laws which violate our most basic liberties.
Did I make myself clear? Your rights END where the rights of others begin. Period. End. Of. Story.
There is no right to not be offended. If any countries recognize such a 'right', then they are broken beyond belief, in a different way than other countries are.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:33PM
You are obviously pro-censorship and anti-free speech, no matter how you try to butter it up. If this is not what you intended to convey, then you are seriously bad at communicating.
Obviously, you fail at understanding what I'm saying. I don't know why that is, because I gave you a nice example with emphasized passages relating to our conversation here from a very authoritative source (UN).
They cannot. Any offense you take is your own doing.
You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide you the studies on a silver plate. Go and find them yourself or take a couple of psychology books or stay ignorant for all I care.
And anyone with a brain disagrees with the extremely subjective and arbitrary notion of "moral integrity"
Thanks for insulting me and loads of other people. And please forgive me for questioning the ultimate authority in all questions, which you apparently represent.
There is no right to not be offended. If any countries recognize such a 'right', then they are broken beyond belief, in a different way than other countries are.
I presented to you a logical chain of emphasized passages from the UNITED NATIONS [!] Universal [!] Declaration of Human Rights proving to you the opposite. All you do is appeal to your own (questionable) authority. ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948" - source [wikipedia.org].)
If you believe that the signatories' countries are broken beyond belief (which, coincidentally, I agree with to an extent, but for completely different reasons), that is your opinion.
Here's [lmddgtfy.net] another argument [wikipedia.org].
Unless you bring something else than your opinion to the table, you can kindly fuck off now.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:47PM
Obviously, you fail at understanding what I'm saying.
It doesn't look that way. It looks to me like you're playing word games to avoid admitting that you support limiting freedom of speech by saying that certain types of speech aren't True Free Speech, and therefore you're not actually limiting anyone's rights.
You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide you the studies on a silver plate.
I'm wrong, but you won't bother to explain how words can physically harm others? That is quite an extraordinary claim. Are you referring to sounds that are sufficiently loud enough? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Go and find them yourself or take a couple of psychology books or stay ignorant for all I care.
I have no need of your cherry-picked studies or your pseudoscience books, since I strive to be logical and informed.
Thanks for insulting me and loads of other people.
No problem. It is easy for me to insult people who do not respect basic rights such as freedom of speech.
I presented to you a logical chain of emphasized passages from the UNITED NATIONS [!] Universal [!] Declaration of Human Rights proving to you the opposite.
Appealing to authority will not help you. If all the countries in the world do evil, then all that means is that all the countries in the world are doing evil; nothing more. An immoral restriction upon freedom of speech is not better simply because the UN endorses it, and it is certainly not uncontroversial in any case.
All you do is appeal to your own (questionable) authority.
I am giving you my opinion. The UN's authoritarian opinions about freedom of speech are not relevant to me.
Unless you bring something else than your opinion to the table, you can kindly fuck off now.
I will not. And whether you like it or not, all you've done is give me your authoritarian opinion by citing the UN's authoritarian opinion. Citing people, organizations, or texts you agree with does not magically change anything.
Maybe you could be less of a coward and just admit that you are opposed to freedom of speech?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:13PM
Maybe you could be less of a coward and just admit that you are opposed to freedom of speech?
Are you an idiot? Seriously. I think you are. You generalize things by saying "all" people and "everyone" and whatever the fuck else you use for your pseudo-arguments and then you're telling me that I'm wrong by citing like one of the most well-respected organizations with regards to human rights?
Let me repeat, are you a fucking IDIOT? You're the one telling me about freedom and rights and then you disregard the UN, the sole organization that actually has an impact globally on freedoms and rights? What the fuck? Are you just trolling? Because if you're serious, I pity you.
I'm wrong, but you won't bother to explain how words can physically harm others? That is quite an extraordinary claim.
You're welcome to pay my hourly rate, plus a premium of 1000% for having to babysit you and I will gladly find you studies by respected, actual authorities on this topic. Otherwise - fuck off!
Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
No need to state the obvious, it's apparent that you're ignorant.
It looks to me like you're playing word games to avoid admitting that you support limiting freedom of speech by saying that certain types of speech aren't True Free Speech
The world isn't black and white, bozo. Even if your simple mind would like it to be that way.
Are you referring to sounds that are sufficiently loud enough? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Good, and I hope it will stay that way for you, because if you grow some empathy, you'll be in a world of pain. No LSD for you, friend.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:43PM
and then you're telling me that I'm wrong by citing like one of the most well-respected organizations with regards to human rights?
Being so well-respected, they really need to update their position on freedom of speech, because the issues with their current position are obvious. Otherwise, I fear they only reinforce the beliefs of authoritarians everywhere that such subjective, arbitrary restrictions upon freedom of speech are okay.
Let me repeat, are you a fucking IDIOT? You're the one telling me about freedom and rights and then you disregard the UN, the sole organization that actually has an impact globally on freedoms and rights?
You might feel it is alright to mindlessly appeal to authority, but I am merely telling you that the authority figure you hold in such high regard is wrong in this case. They might have some other good ideas, but that does not make them right 100% of the time.
You're welcome to pay my hourly rate, plus a premium of 1000% for having to babysit you and I will gladly find you studies by respected, actual authorities on this topic. Otherwise - fuck off!
I reject your claim, then.
No need to state the obvious, it's apparent that you're ignorant.
If someone were to say that Islam's prophet was a pedophile with the intention of offending others, what do you think the government should do about that person?
The world isn't black and white, bozo. Even if your simple mind would like it to be that way.
You're seemingly playing dishonest word games, and I'm calling you out for it. I have asked you numerous time if you support limiting freedom of speech, and you've constantly told me I'm misinterpreting you. When you do such things, surely you don't expect that people won't take notice of this and criticize you?
Good, and I hope it will stay that way for you, because if you grow some empathy, you'll be in a world of pain.
Your claim was that the words themselves can cause physical harm. I am aware that some people can take offense to certain things already.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:27PM
I reject your claim, then.
And look at how many fucks I give about that [theamountoffucksigive.com], especially, if you're unwilling to go and research some generally accepted, scientifically proven statement. You're the one welcome to prove that psychology is a pseudoscience, because the status quo is that for the majority of the scientific world it is not.
Being so well-respected, they really need to update their position on freedom of speech, because the issues with their current position are obvious
[citation needed]
I am merely telling you that the authority figure you hold in such high regard is wrong in this case
[citation needed]
If someone were to say that Islam's prophet was a pedophile with the intention of offending others, what do you think the government should do about that person?
The government and/or the offended people are welcome to sue the offending person. Similar situation as with e.g. calling someone names or with slander (even though the statement might be true in this particular case).
I have asked you numerous time if you support limiting freedom of speech, and you've constantly told me I'm misinterpreting you.
There are more urgent and important rights than freedom of speech. Like the right to remain free of bodily (and mostly consequently, psychological) injury and harm.
That's why I keep telling you that your rights end where mine begin. If, for instance, you start pushing someone on the street, don't be surprised if your face makes an acquaintance with the fist of that person or someone else's standing up for him/her. If you go and walk around someone's property, because you are free to move around, don't be surprised to be kicked out.
Your claim was that the words themselves can cause physical harm.
The claim is that words can lead to physical harm, and it stands as it is. "Turn on the electric chair!" and "Go ahead, jump! No one cares about you." are two (very) primitive examples. Another example is that e.g. if a person has heart problems and you create stress by saying something offending, the person can die.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14PM
especially, if you're unwilling to go and research some generally accepted, scientifically proven statement.
The claim is that words can lead to physical harm, and it stands as it is. "Turn on the electric chair!" and "Go ahead, jump! No one cares about you." are two (very) primitive examples. Another example is that e.g. if a person has heart problems and you create stress by saying something offending, the person can die.
I see. Then that is still absolute bullshit, because it is someone else choosing to respond to the words in ways that harm themselves or others that cause the harmful actions to happen, not the words. Offense is also taken, not given.
You're the one welcome to prove that psychology is a pseudoscience, because the status quo is that for the majority of the scientific world it is not.
There are good reasons to believe otherwise. [arachnoid.com] The soft 'sciences' aren't nearly as rigorous as other fields, are more open to bias, and are far more subjective. There are some good scientists that detail the limits of their studies, however. Bad science in psychology brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others (kind of like what you're doing now). "Do video games cause violence? This study I agree with says yes (and I'm going to ignore the overall scientific consensus and refer to one or a few studies), so it must be true, and therefore we need to ban violent video games."
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Citation: Me, and presumably anyone who isn't an authoritarian like yourself. Your standards would obliterate freedom of speech and allow the most oversensitive groups to censor anyone else by continually getting angry until it becomes 'unreasonable' to expect that they wouldn't.
The government and/or the offended people are welcome to sue the offending person.
Anyone is already welcome to try to sue for just about anything, but should they win?
There are more urgent and important rights than freedom of speech.
There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them. Freedom is far more important than safety.
That's why I keep telling you that your rights end where mine begin.
And saying this in regards to speech some find offensive makes no sense whatsoever.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @07:47PM
someone else choosing to respond to the words
No, the heart patient doesn't choose, it's an automatic reaction.
There are good reasons to believe otherwise.
Bad science in <insert science here> brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others
FTFY. Bad is bad is bad is bad... mh'kay?
Your standards would obliterate freedom of speech and allow the most oversensitive groups to censor anyone else by continually getting angry until it becomes 'unreasonable' to expect that they wouldn't.
No, the fanatics would eventually all sit in jail for murder ;)
Citation: Me, and presumably anyone who isn't an authoritarian like yourself.
For someone who seems so keen on allowing only hard sciences, you make a lot of assumptions.
Anyone is already welcome to try to sue for just about anything, but should they win
That's, fortunately, not for you (or me) to decide. Let professionals handle this question, not armchair philosophers.
There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them.
Prove it.
Freedom is far more important than safety.
For an anarchist maybe, for anyone else (save the other extreme) a balance is what makes society work [wikipedia.org].
And saying this in regards to speech some find offensive makes no sense whatsoever.
What about in regards to speech lots find offensive?
So let me get this straight, for you a) the world is black and white, b) freedom of speech trumps the security of societal balance? That's quite an attitude problem IMO.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM
No, the heart patient doesn't choose, it's an automatic reaction.
The words do not force him to become stressed out, and nor have they forced him to be offended.
Bad science in brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others
FTFY. Bad is bad is bad is bad... mh'kay?
I gave examples. Since psychology deals with human psychology, there are few more opportunities for people to use bad science to advocate for government control over others as compared to, say, physics.
No, the fanatics would eventually all sit in jail for murder ;)
They would not murder, but sue and threaten until they get what they want. Their delicate sensibilities are being offended, after all, and we can't have that.
For someone who seems so keen on allowing only hard sciences, you make a lot of assumptions.
If you mean I'm making assumptions about you, I'm simply taking your words at face value, which leads me to conclude you are an authoritarian.
That's, fortunately, not for you (or me) to decide.
I am asking you a question. Given my example, do you think the person who insulted Muhammed should be punished?
Prove it.
You want me to prove to you that I have certain priorities?
For an anarchist maybe, for anyone else (save the other extreme) a balance is what makes society work.
No, for anyone who cares about freedom. Surrendering our fundamental liberties (and freedom of speech is one of our most basic liberties) in exchange for 'safety' from things like being offended (Ha!) is disgusting and anyone who advocates such things should move to North Korea. It wouldn't surprise me if you also supported mass surveillance, free speech zones, and other freedom-violating measures. You might as well. There's nothing anarchist about preferring freedom over safety; it's just a recognition that things like freedom of speech are more important than physical or mental safety.
What about in regards to speech lots find offensive?
Same thing. You're seemingly advocating for tyranny of the majority now.
a) the world is black and white
Not so much. I just have different priorities from authoritarians such as yourself. Whereas you may prefer to align yourself with countries like North Korea and China, I prefer to strive for a more free society.
b) freedom of speech trumps the security of societal balance?
I do not believe speech can be harmful at all (short of sounds loud enough to cause physical harm), so there is no balance to be had.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @09:38PM
The words do not force him to become stressed out, and nor have they forced him to be offended.
You're wrong. Ask a doctor.
I gave examples. Since psychology deals with human psychology, there are few more opportunities for people to use bad science to advocate for government control over others as compared to, say, physics.
So what, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a pseudo-science, as is generally and widely accepted. There's black sheep everywhere, just look in the mirror.
They would not murder, but sue and threaten until they get what they want.
That is, if society (or the judges) doesn't tell them to fuck off at some point. And regarding threats, you can go to jail for that.
which leads me to conclude you are an authoritarian.
You're wrong. I'm zen. Totally centered. You're the one who is in one of the extremes.
Given my example
What example?
do you think the person who insulted Muhammed should be punished?
That's not for me to decide but for the people that have an emotional stake in this, i.e. Muslims.
You want me to prove to you that I have certain priorities?
Your statement: "There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them." does not mention your priorities, you're just presenting your opinion as a fact. Again, without backing anything up.
No, for anyone who cares about freedom.
I care about my (and my family's) freedom to develop in the way that I (they) want, and for this I (we) need a working society. I can imagine improvements for the one we live in, but what you suggest will lead to a total collapse.
So you're wrong. Again.
anyone who advocates such things should move to North Korea.
But I'm the authoritarian here, right?
It wouldn't surprise me if you also supported mass surveillance, free speech zones
So it must surprise you that I don't.
There's nothing anarchist about preferring freedom over safety; it's just a recognition that things like freedom of speech are more important than physical or mental safety.
Ok, let's meet tomorrow at 12 am in the park. You can express your opinion and I will have some acquaintances of mine prove to you that your mental and physical safety is more important to you. Slowly and painfully.
You're seemingly advocating for tyranny of the majority now.
You fail to understand that only by voluntarily limiting your own freedoms you gain the ability to exert them. This is not an oxymoron, but you seem to be too blind to understand this.
Whereas you may prefer to align yourself with countries like North Korea and China, I prefer to strive for a more free society.
Let me guess, you've never been to China, North Korea, The Soviet Union or the US... oh wait..
Regardless... So you're suggesting a functioning society of individualists. Now that is an oxymoron. You can only have a society, when you limit your freedoms as an individual. Go read some books and grow up.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting the dissolution of individualism. That doesn't work either. The only thing that leads to evolution is the middle path. Anything else leads to degradation and/or destruction.
I do not believe speech can be harmful at all
Maybe that's the only thing we're arguing about then? Maybe you should go see a doctor after all (about that heart patient example).
Could you imagine if one of your loved ones is bullied to the grave? Would you still think it's their decision? What if it's just a kid? I have difficulties believing that you're such a cold as ice, motherfucker. But then again, I do have issues with seeing the good in people.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:44AM
You're wrong. Ask a doctor.
If a doctor said otherwise, he would be incorrect. Your endless appeal to insignificant authority figures is useless. Offense is taken, not given; sorry you can't understand something so simple. The vibrations in the air that he interprets a certain way are killing him!
So what, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a pseudo-science, as is generally and widely accepted.
Many, many psychology studies are horrible jokes. As I said, if a particular study details its limitations and is generally honest about its conclusion, then that is one thing. But the field is nowhere near the level of, say, physics.
That is, if society (or the judges) doesn't tell them to fuck off at some point. And regarding threats, you can go to jail for that.
Under your system, they would never "fuck off" because being offended is apparently a good enough reason to silence speech.
You're wrong. I'm zen. Totally centered. You're the one who is in one of the extremes.
My position isn't any more "extreme" to me than someone who doesn't want the government to have the power to murder people for no reason. If it is "extreme" to you, I would posit that it's because you're an authoritarian who thinks that authoritarianism is normal and good, but that is jsut a guess.
What example?
Pay more attention.
That's not for me to decide but for the people that have an emotional stake in this, i.e. Muslims.
Wait... so the people who have an emotional stake in this should hand out the punishment themselves? I am asking you if someone who says that Muhammed is a pedophile to offend others would be punished under your system, or if you think they should be punished.
Your statement: "There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them." does not mention your priorities, you're just presenting your opinion as a fact.
I'm presenting my opinion as people often present their opinion: Without constantly stating "In my opinion...". You don't understand how human language works, clearly, because there are many instances where you did the same.
I can imagine improvements for the one we live in, but what you suggest will lead to a total collapse.
Being able to offend people would lead to a total collapse? Interesting.
But I'm the authoritarian here, right?
Yes. I merely suggested that if you want such a government, one already exists; it's North Korea. No need to corrupt or continue to corrupt existing governments with your rampant authoritarianism.
So it must surprise you that I don't.
The fact that it wouldn't surprise me if you did doesn't mean it surprises me that you supposedly don't. Though, I think you're being inconsistent here. The bogeymen are going to get us, and since freedom is worthless, clearly mass surveillance is justified.
Ok, let's meet tomorrow at 12 am in the park. You can express your opinion and I will have some acquaintances of mine prove to you that your mental and physical safety is more important to you. Slowly and painfully.
It's clear to me that you'd prefer to spew forth straw men rather than attempt to understand my position. You are equating the general principle "Freedom is more important than safety." with complete anarchism, which is a false comparison. You are probably taking it so literally because it is more convenient for your arguments.
You fail to understand that only by voluntarily limiting your own freedoms you gain the ability to exert them.
No, not in this case. If a majority find something offensive, that's no different from some people finding it offensive; that is, it doesn't matter, as it doesn't mean the speech should be banned. I don't live in a direct democracy where the majority has absolute power, and I wouldn't want to, so I'm not sure what you were trying to do.
Let me guess, you've never been to China, North Korea, The Soviet Union or the US... oh wait..
They generally believe that it's okay to violate people's fundamental liberties 'For the Greater Good', or for the ambitions of the leaders. Fundamental liberties including freedom of speech. Maybe you should think about going there?
Regardless... So you're suggesting a functioning society of individualists.
Nope, one that protects fundamental liberties like freedom of speech over things like censoring speech that offends people. Government censorship is 100% intolerable.
The only thing that leads to evolution is the middle path. Anything else leads to degradation and/or destruction.
Ah, yes, The One True Middle Path. Nice argument to moderation.
Maybe that's the only thing we're arguing about then? Maybe you should go see a doctor after all (about that heart patient example).
Again, the doctor would be incorrect, as the words did not *force* that person to become offended, and nor is the speaker able to command that they do so; different people are offended by different things. You blame the speaker, but I correctly recognize that how someone responds to the speech is on them.
Could you imagine if one of your loved ones is bullied to the grave? Would you still think it's their decision? What if it's just a kid?
That would be their decision.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:59AM
If a doctor said otherwise, he would be incorrect.
No he wouldn't.
Many, many studies are horrible jokes.
FTFY. Absurd generalization. Invalid argument.
Under your system, they would never "fuck off"
You fail at reading comprehension. They have no say whether they will fuck off or not.
My position isn't any more "extreme" to me than someone who doesn't want the government to have the power to murder people for no reason.
Your position is extreme to me, because there are more important things than speech and you fail to recognize the simple fact that life is neither static, nor black and white.
Pay more attention.
Look who's talking.
I am asking you if someone who says <something> to offend others would be punished under your system, or if you think they should be punished.
FTFY. That's how our society works currently, apparently you never met someone, who kicked your ass for insisting on your freedom of expression. There are courts and laws that can decide whether someone is inciting violence, which is punishable by law in many countries including in the EU.
You don't understand how human language works, clearly
You are the one, who doesn't seem to understand how a statement has to be backed up in some way other than "it is my opinion" in a mature discourse.
Being able to offend people would lead to a total collapse? Interesting.
Always insisting on one's right, disrespecting others and always putting freedom of speech above bodily integrity leads that way. Obviously.
You are equating the general principle "Freedom is more important than safety." with complete anarchism, which is a false comparison.
No it's not. The world is not black and white and your freedom ends where another's begins. You're the one insisting on the mindless premise that freedom always trumps security. Why don't you go out in the next "migrant neighborhood" and spout nazi slogans or go insult some group's ideology in their face and see what happens and whether you continue to insist on your freedom of expression and how you're right about it. In some situations you might even be right, but you'd be dead or in the hospital with serious injuries and wouldn't be able to further your agenda, thus it is futile to insist on freedom of expression, when your life or health is in danger (again, in most situations). If you don't see this, this whole discussion with you is pointless and I just have to give up on you, as for me and in this case you're absolutely hopeless.
No, not in this case.
Oh, now it's not in this case, before you were insisting on being categorical. What's going on?
it doesn't matter, as it doesn't mean the speech should be banned
It's not, you're free to express insulting speech in the confines of your home but not in public spaces or risk punishment. Refer to incitement, if you need clarification.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do.
I ain't trying anything. I'm telling you that you can't always insist on your freedom of expression and that it doesn't trump other freedoms (in most situations). If you fail to understand this, you lack life experience and this is solely your problem that you have to cope with.
They generally believe that it's okay to violate people's fundamental liberties 'For the Greater Good'
I challenge you to name a country that is not fictional and does not adhere to this principle.
Maybe you should think about going there?
Been there, done that. Next.
Government censorship is 100% intolerable.
This is not about governmental censorship this is about self-censorship for the sake of harmony aka respect (and to a lesser extent, to prevent injury and maintain integrity). Same way you probably don't go around shouting at and insulting people on the street.
Ah, yes, The One True Middle Path.
Indeed, though it is broader and wider than you may realize at this time. This concept is like a thread that goes through all societies since like the beginning of recorded time.
the words did not *force* that person to become offended, and nor is the speaker able to command that they do so
The question is whether words can cause psychological and bodily injury and they can.
I correctly recognize that how someone responds to the speech is on them.
You're incorrect, as you can't fully consciously control such chemical reactions in your body, unless you've attained enlightenment, which you didn't or we wouldn't be having this argument.
That would be their decision.
Right... So it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
IMO, you cherry pick what you want, generalize or take things literal where and when you see fit and are absolutely inconsistent from a logical perspective. I doubt that I will be interested to discuss this matter with you further and hope that you will always stay short of having any real power or influence over people, if my impression of you is even remotely right. If you are serious about what you are saying, you would be a threat to any existing society, including North Korea.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:32AM
No he wouldn't.
Whatever you say.
FTFY. Absurd generalization. Invalid argument.
It happens more often in the hard sciences due to the subjectivity, bias, and difficulties involved. The human mind is a complex thing, and trying to get objective, unbiased data about it is difficult.
You fail at reading comprehension. They have no say whether they will fuck off or not.
I'm saying your courts won't tell them to fuck off, because apparently we need to protect people's delicate sensibilities.
Your position is extreme to me, because there are more important things than speech and you fail to recognize the simple fact that life is neither static, nor black and white.
Things more important than speech to me are things like stopping the government from murdering people. Notice how I'm placing limits on the government's power, not people's right to offend others.
FTFY. That's how our society works currently, apparently you never met someone, who kicked your ass for insisting on your freedom of expression.
And anyone who uses physical violence against another for speaking should be punished appropriately.
You are the one, who doesn't seem to understand how a statement has to be backed up in some way other than "it is my opinion" in a mature discourse.
Whereas you are saying "This is my opinion, and I'm going to also appeal to the status quo." Society is often wrong, so that is meaningless. Placing such limits on freedom of speech will only encourage the oversensitive to voice their objections more strongly to silence others.
Always insisting on one's right, disrespecting others and always putting freedom of speech above bodily integrity leads that way. Obviously.
Freedom of speech cannot violate bodily integrity. Disrespecting or offending others will not be able to collapse anything.
No it's not. The world is not black and white and your freedom ends where another's begins.
It is clear that we disagree on what freedoms we should. To me (and to some extent, even the US, though there is unjust and unconstitutional censorship here), freedom of speech is *much* more important than stopping people from being offended.
In some situations you might even be right, but you'd be dead or in the hospital with serious injuries and wouldn't be able to further your agenda, thus it is futile to insist on freedom of expression, when your life or health is in danger (again, in most situations).
Appeal to force. Protecting freedom of speech means not allowing the government to silence people *and* not allowing normal people to silence others with force.
Oh, now it's not in this case, before you were insisting on being categorical. What's going on?
No clue what you mean, or meant.
It's not, you're free to express insulting speech in the confines of your home but not in public spaces or risk punishment.
Not being able to speak in public is a severe restriction on freedom of speech. Sharing your opinions with others in the public square is an extremely important right, even if that speech is offensive.
I challenge you to name a country that is not fictional and does not adhere to this principle.
There is a difference between a liberty and a fundamental liberty. In that instance, I was speaking of basic rights such as freedom of speech and the right to life, among other things.
This is not about governmental censorship this is about self-censorship for the sake of harmony aka respect
So you do not advocate for government censorship, then? Because if the government gets involved at all and punishes someone for their speech, that counts as government interference with speech. If someone beats you up for speaking, that is also a violation of your free speech rights.
Indeed, though it is broader and wider than you may realize at this time. This concept is like a thread that goes through all societies since like the beginning of recorded time.
You're just using an argument to moderation. What is and is not a "middle path" or "extreme" is subjective.
The question is whether words can cause psychological and bodily injury and they can.
You have contradicted yourself. Earlier, you said that words can *lead* to bodily injury, even going so far as to correct me on that. Now you're saying that the words themselves cause it.
And no, they can't. How people choose to react to your words is where any 'harm' may come in. The words themselves do nothing.
You're incorrect, as you can't fully consciously control such chemical reactions in your body
Even if you cannot control yourself, the words themselves (and the speaker) have still done nothing. It is on you, even if your unconscious mind influences your decisions.
Right... So it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
Correct.
IMO, you cherry pick what you want, generalize or take things literal where and when you see fit and are absolutely inconsistent from a logical perspective.
From a logical perspective, I am completely consistent. I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Passing around child porn should not be punishable. Death threats should not be punishable. Offending others definitely shouldn't be punishable, which is an insane belief even to many people who do not agree with my absolute freedom of speech position. Etcetera.
If you are serious about what you are saying, you would be a threat to any existing society, including North Korea.
Freedom is indeed a threat to authoritarians everywhere.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:49AM
it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
Correct.
Even if that's your 3 year old? I have never seen such a display of total ignorance. Bravo.
I hope you will always be kept from positions of influence and power, because all you will be able to do is harm everyone else around you in your arrogant pursuit of an extreme ideology. In short, you're just a fanatic.
This discussion with you is from my perspective pointless until you gain some experience.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:01AM
Even if that's your 3 year old? I have never seen such a display of total ignorance. Bravo.
Do I think they should be legally forbidden from doing so? No. I might not agree with their speech, however.
I hope you will always be kept from positions of influence and power
Not entirely. You can always vote for candidates who agree with you, so there is some amount of influence and power.
In short, you're just a fanatic.
Likewise, I would describe you as a fanatic.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:53AM
Likewise, I would describe you as a fanatic.
Great, we agree on something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:11AM
You believe murder and words are the same? Whoah, put the keyboard down and walk away slowly!
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:59AM
You believe murder and words are the same?
"You must be a communist/pedophile/terrorist/something else atrocious."
No, I don't believe that. I condemn the killing, but I also condemn the provocation on the part of the satirists, may they R.I.P..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM
By the looks of it, the magazine specializes on inflaming demographics. Some of them would be marginalized ones.
So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech. If you have to resort to obtaining illegal automatic weapons and shooting the people you disagree with, then you have absolutely no place in a society that values freedom of speech.
Anyone who actually defends those who resort to violence also has no place in a society that values freedom of speech.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:21PM
So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech.
If so, you need to explain why laws about libel and defamation exist. Without them I could tell lies about you to all your friends and neighbors and employers and business partners, and all you could do would be... to tell them that I'm a liar? Much good will that do to you. You don't even know whose exactly minds are poisoned by my lies. If you deny your wrongdoing to someone who hasn't heard about it yet, you'd be doing my work for me.
Or, perhaps, you are talking about your own speech in court? I don't think anyone here will be defending the shooters. However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court. Freedom of speech and all that. Where does that leave you, or them? Should they have packed up and left the country? Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone? It doesn't matter that they are Muslims - the previous attempt of this very kind involved Jews.
It is also important to note that minorities, just by the fact of their small number and smaller influence in the society, cannot respond to every word of their opponent with their own word. It's called tyranny of majority, and the laws exist to make sure that no group, large or small, is permitted to mistreat another group. In case of France, a certain group was permitted by wink and nod of the court to mistreat a minority, even though the minority repeatedly asked to stop this activity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:41PM
Saying something bad about someone is only improper when it isn't true.
Truth: Muslims worship a prophet who slept with children.
Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill an infidel.
Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill anyone who converts away from islam.
Truth: Many muslims would kill a person if they thought they had even inadvertently destroyed a koran.
All fucking verifiably true. So I am not lying about you to your friends and neighbors, I am warning them about you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM
Libel and slander aren't crimes. They're torts. The government will never bother you about either of these things; you can say whatever you want about someone, and the government will never put you in jail over it. You can be sued, however, just like you can be sued any time someone wrongs you; if the judge (or jury) agrees with you, you get a judgment and maybe you'll get the defendant to pay it.
However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court.
Boo hoo. Making fun of a religion is not the same as falsely defaming a person. If I say that "John is a pedophile" (and worse, tell his employer that), that causes John material harm. If I say "Scientology is a stupid religion", who does that hurt exactly? There's no person there, just a large group. Plus, my claim isn't even non-factual (which in the US at least is required for it to be actionable), it's a matter of opinion.
Should they have packed up and left the country?
If they can't stand their stupid religion being mocked, then yes, they should have left the country. Otherwise, STFU; everyone gets made fun of at some point.
Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone?
Twelve dead people at Charlie Hebdo disagree with you about them not hurting anyone.
No one "ostracized" them; they were lampooned. It happens to every group. Are you saying political parties shouldn't be mocked? So why is a religion above all criticism?
Honestly, it's really pathetic that people like you are actually calling for limiting free speech and criticism of anyone just because they're a minority and are apparently so easily offended they'll resort to mass murder.