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Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical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The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports.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) 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.