I'm a little undecided on where I stand with the latest cartoon. I'm all for freedom of speech (as long as it falls within the law) but it is a fine line between that and insulting people. I can understand the magazine and the makers wanting to show a response but it does feel a bit low to react in the way they did.
Surely moderate muslims could only be offended if they bought the magazine. Are you saying they have the right to be offended simply by the knowledge that non muslims are reading the magazine?
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
I'm a little undecided on where I stand with the latest cartoon. I'm all for freedom of speech (as long as it falls within the law) but it is a fine line between that and insulting people. I can understand the magazine and the makers wanting to show a response but it does feel a bit low to react in the way they did.
Surely moderate muslims could only be offended if they bought the magazine. Are you saying they have the right to be offended simply by the knowledge that non muslims are reading the magazine?
Not sure I follow the logic here. If someone said or wrote something offensive about you that wasn't directly aimed at you or sent to you would you not have the right to be offended?
I'm a little undecided on where I stand with the latest cartoon. I'm all for freedom of speech (as long as it falls within the law) but it is a fine line between that and insulting people. I can understand the magazine and the makers wanting to show a response but it does feel a bit low to react in the way they did.
Surely moderate muslims could only be offended if they bought the magazine. Are you saying they have the right to be offended simply by the knowledge that non muslims are reading the magazine?
Not sure I follow the logic here. If someone said or wrote something offensive about you that wasn't directly aimed at you or sent to you would you not have the right to be offended?
Do you mean me personally or someone saying or writing somthing offensive about a sub group I happen to belong to like Atheist, British, Londoner, Charlton Supporter etc?
Surely, as with anything it's the intent that matters ?
If they are producing the cartoons simply to offend Muslims then that's wrong, if the intent is a statement of artistic freedom of expression then that's probably different.
It's the same answer in my mind as to why certain words to define a race are wrong when used as a pejorative but acceptable when used in a different context (I.e rap music).
Does it matter? If you find it offensive then surely that's enough whether you actively sought to find what was written or said about you or not.
So we should ban anything that someone, somewhere might be offended by?
How do you know it's offensive if you haven't seen it? It's as ridiculous as the fundamentalist christians protesting about Jerry Springer the opera without having seen it. "I'm offended because someone told me to be". I'm completely with Stephen Fry on the offended thing.
Surely, as with anything it's the intent that matters ?
If they are producing the cartoons simply to offend Muslims then that's wrong, if the intent is a statement of artistic freedom of expression then that's probably different.
It's the same answer in my mind as to why certain words to define a race are wrong when used as a pejorative but acceptable when used in a different context (I.e rap music).
Yeah a fair point, obviously words or images can take on different contexts.
On the are they trying to offend some Muslims? I'd say they aren't directly trying to do so but it appears to be a consequence of what they have printed. I think that's probably as pertinent as trying to offend a group of people. I think if any of us had offended someone without meaning to and they pulled us up on it we'd probably apologise.
Surely, as with anything it's the intent that matters ?
If they are producing the cartoons simply to offend Muslims then that's wrong, if the intent is a statement of artistic freedom of expression then that's probably different.
It's the same answer in my mind as to why certain words to define a race are wrong when used as a pejorative but acceptable when used in a different context (I.e rap music).
Yeah a fair point, obviously words or images can take on different contexts.
On the are they trying to offend some Muslims? I'd say they aren't directly trying to do so but it appears to be a consequence of what they have printed. I think that's probably as pertinent as trying to offend a group of people. I think if any of us had offended someone without meaning to and they pulled us up on it we'd probably apologise.
I guess that's where the "freedom" part comes in, your free (within reason) to express yourself, someone is free to be offended by that expression and you're free to apologise should you feel the need to.
If a Crystal Palace fan's sensibilities were offended by you supporting Charlton I highly doubt you would apologise to them ?
That's an extreme example but you'd still have done something, the indirect consequence of which was someone being offended but you've decided that on balance you have nothing to apologise for. Where that line is is up to each individual to decide and that is the point of freedom.
Does it matter? If you find it offensive then surely that's enough whether you actively sought to find what was written or said about you or not.
So we should ban anything that someone, somewhere might be offended by?
FFS have I said that? Have a read through the thread, no, just read back a page or two and see what my point was. Tit.
I've read your posts and I agree with Stu. You tie yourself in knots but your argument suggest that the right of be offended trumps the right to publish. I can't disagree with you more, i think it's a terrible position to take.
Does it matter? If you find it offensive then surely that's enough whether you actively sought to find what was written or said about you or not.
So we should ban anything that someone, somewhere might be offended by?
FFS have I said that? Have a read through the thread, no, just read back a page or two and see what my point was. Tit.
I've read your posts and I agree with Stu. You tie yourself in knots but your argument suggest that the right of be offended trumps the right to publish. I can't disagree with you more, i think it's a terrible position to take.
Have I once said I wanted to ban the publication? Or that free speech shouldn't be allowed if it offends someone?
I may have tied myself up in knots but I freely admitted that I'm not completely sure where I stand on this issue. Or am I not allowed to change my opinion on a matter?
Free speech is black or white, you either have it or you don't. People have the right to be offended, be upset, sue for defamation etc but they don't have to right to chop your head off or shoot you. You can't start introducing exceptions for one group but not others, that is not free speech. To do so would be a huge insult to those brave souls who gave their lives in order that could live in peace and have the freedom to say what we think without living in fear of our lives.
Free speech is black or white, you either have it or you don't. People have the right to be offended, be upset, sue for defamation etc but they don't have to right to chop your head off or shoot you. You can't start introducing exceptions for one group but not others, that is not free speech. To do so would be a huge insult to those brave souls who gave their lives in order that could live in peace and have the freedom to say what we think without living in fear of our lives.
I thoroughly recommend this free book to anyone who wishes to educate themselves about Islam. Only 140 odd pages, but well worth the time IMO.
http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au/ It was written by a long time scholar of the religion and is currently the number 2 bestseller on Amazon.com on the subject of Islam.
A basic tenet of 'free speech' is not only the ability to speak your mind about whatever you want, but also the necessity for tolerance of others when they exercise this right as afforded to them by a 'free' society.
Occasionally (more frequently for some!) this will lead to discomfort and possibly even outrage when someone says something you disagree with, or find abhorrent.
Provided advocating harm to a person or group of people, then most would see the occasional personal outrage as a small price to pay to maintain that right to freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, there are some subjects that people feel strongly enough about that they aren't willing to just ignore it, or complain about it - they see it as fundamental to their rights to seek to PREVENT people from expressing opinions about those subjects.
Sadly, religion is one such subject. Since the dawn of time, religion - or indeed the lack of religion - has polarised opinion, caused an almost unimaginable amount of hatred, bloodshed and genocide, and as a result - in the West at least is becoming more and more marginalised in mainstream society.
Plonk a religion which is regularly preached by some as anti-freedom of speech into a society which has little tolerance for people who refuse to let their views be criticised and/or ridiculed, and you have a recipe for disaster.
"Freedom of speech" has never been an absolute, at least not in the UK.
Blasphemy laws have existed for many years and only until very recently applied only to the Church of England. So very much favouring one group over another.
We also have long standing laws around slander and libel
We also have laws about foul and abusive language and outraging public decency.
Books and magazines are banned and burnt all the time. Pornography deemed too extreme mainly.
The magazine OZ, Romans in Britain play and the book Lady Chatterly's Lover were all taken to court in my life time. Films were regularly censored either by being cut or banned completely. Life of Brian was refused licences to be shown in many cities in the 1970s and the Sex Pistols stopped from playing.
My perception is that we are now far more tolerant of sex and sexuality as well as violence and swearing that would have been allowed 50 years ago. There is now a lot more freedom of speech but it isn't absolute and personally I'm quite pleased with that.
People posting vile threats on twitter get arrested and imprisoned. Too harsh maybe but they have learnt they can't threaten to rape someone. Inciting hatred is also a crime and good I say.
I think the main benefit of free speech is that it enables us to understand other opinions, and challenges our own opinions. That then leads us to develop our views and helps us develop new views when we face new problems - global warming, genetic engineering, whatever. Inevitably that means being taken out of our comfort zone and possibly offended. This is inherently problematic for religions that necessarily talk in terms of absolute and eternal truths (what sort of God would it be that didn't know the absolute and eternal truth?). Christianity struggles with 'new' issues (women Bishops, contraception) but at least tries to evolve its views. Islam struggles with this a lot more. This is a problem, not just or even mainly because of terrorism but because it holds back progress and causes huge suffering in those countries where Islam is most influential.
Freedom of speech is a means to a worthwhile end not an absolute right. If you think it is then you're making a similar mistake to those who say their religious text is the absolute truth.
Free speech is black or white, you either have it or you don't. People have the right to be offended, be upset, sue for defamation etc but they don't have to right to chop your head off or shoot you. You can't start introducing exceptions for one group but not others, that is not free speech. To do so would be a huge insult to those brave souls who gave their lives in order that could live in peace and have the freedom to say what we think without living in fear of our lives.
Free speech is black or white, you either have it or you don't. People have the right to be offended, be upset, sue for defamation etc but they don't have to right to chop your head off or shoot you. You can't start introducing exceptions for one group but not others, that is not free speech. To do so would be a huge insult to those brave souls who gave their lives in order that could live in peace and have the freedom to say what we think without living in fear of our lives.
Literally nobody is advocating that.
So Col and Se9 you're saying that nobody is advocating exceptions for specific groups and certainly not one's that threaten violence? I'm sorry but I don't believe that the refusal by virtually every UK newspaper and broadcaster to publish the Mohamed cartoons is just coincidental to the threats offered by sections of that community. I can't think of a single occasion where media organisations have held back in this way unless there has been a legal injunction. Lets called a spade a spade, they're scared of the reprisals and all the talk of 'not causing offence' is just a smokescreen for not wanting to be targeted. I'm not even saying I blame them for this decision but I beleive there has become a de facto muslim exception and to deny it is disingenuous.
My point was, and has always been in this thread that I don't want to start banning areas currently open for free speech. Just thought I should state that as it seems either confusion or just ignoring the chain of posts.
As for the example of the media in this country I can understand it. Maybe it is down to fear of possible attacks after all they do have a responsibility to their employees and if there is a legitimate threat then it's hard to ignore it. But it could also be they are self enforcing the right to not show the cartoon on moral grounds as they don't want to offend. Granted, the latter is unlikely given press morals in this country.
Just an observation; if reaction is anything to go by, the Muslim comunity as a whole seem to be more outraged by these cartoons than people murdering others in the name of their religion.
Comments
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
If they are producing the cartoons simply to offend Muslims then that's wrong, if the intent is a statement of artistic freedom of expression then that's probably different.
It's the same answer in my mind as to why certain words to define a race are wrong when used as a pejorative but acceptable when used in a different context (I.e rap music).
I'm completely with Stephen Fry on the offended thing.
On the are they trying to offend some Muslims? I'd say they aren't directly trying to do so but it appears to be a consequence of what they have printed. I think that's probably as pertinent as trying to offend a group of people. I think if any of us had offended someone without meaning to and they pulled us up on it we'd probably apologise.
If a Crystal Palace fan's sensibilities were offended by you supporting Charlton I highly doubt you would apologise to them ?
That's an extreme example but you'd still have done something, the indirect consequence of which was someone being offended but you've decided that on balance you have nothing to apologise for. Where that line is is up to each individual to decide and that is the point of freedom.
I may have tied myself up in knots but I freely admitted that I'm not completely sure where I stand on this issue. Or am I not allowed to change my opinion on a matter?
http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au/
It was written by a long time scholar of the religion and is currently the number 2 bestseller on Amazon.com on the subject of Islam.
A basic tenet of 'free speech' is not only the ability to speak your mind about whatever you want, but also the necessity for tolerance of others when they exercise this right as afforded to them by a 'free' society.
Occasionally (more frequently for some!) this will lead to discomfort and possibly even outrage when someone says something you disagree with, or find abhorrent.
Provided advocating harm to a person or group of people, then most would see the occasional personal outrage as a small price to pay to maintain that right to freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, there are some subjects that people feel strongly enough about that they aren't willing to just ignore it, or complain about it - they see it as fundamental to their rights to seek to PREVENT people from expressing opinions about those subjects.
Sadly, religion is one such subject. Since the dawn of time, religion - or indeed the lack of religion - has polarised opinion, caused an almost unimaginable amount of hatred, bloodshed and genocide, and as a result - in the West at least is becoming more and more marginalised in mainstream society.
Plonk a religion which is regularly preached by some as anti-freedom of speech into a society which has little tolerance for people who refuse to let their views be criticised and/or ridiculed, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Blasphemy laws have existed for many years and only until very recently applied only to the Church of England. So very much favouring one group over another.
We also have long standing laws around slander and libel
We also have laws about foul and abusive language and outraging public decency.
Books and magazines are banned and burnt all the time. Pornography deemed too extreme mainly.
The magazine OZ, Romans in Britain play and the book Lady Chatterly's Lover were all taken to court in my life time. Films were regularly censored either by being cut or banned completely. Life of Brian was refused licences to be shown in many cities in the 1970s and the Sex Pistols stopped from playing.
My perception is that we are now far more tolerant of sex and sexuality as well as violence and swearing that would have been allowed 50 years ago. There is now a lot more freedom of speech but it isn't absolute and personally I'm quite pleased with that.
People posting vile threats on twitter get arrested and imprisoned. Too harsh maybe but they have learnt they can't threaten to rape someone. Inciting hatred is also a crime and good I say.
Freedom of speech is a means to a worthwhile end not an absolute right. If you think it is then you're making a similar mistake to those who say their religious text is the absolute truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XMbwcBYT0DI
As for the example of the media in this country I can understand it. Maybe it is down to fear of possible attacks after all they do have a responsibility to their employees and if there is a legitimate threat then it's hard to ignore it. But it could also be they are self enforcing the right to not show the cartoon on moral grounds as they don't want to offend. Granted, the latter is unlikely given press morals in this country.