Where to draw the line on free speech?

Mellor

pauldla wrote: »

So you are positing the existence of malicious lampooning? Could you give some examples, please?



Beliefs are very different to sex or race. In my forty-odd years I have had numerous beliefs of different hues; my ethnicity and gender have not changed. I'd say that we have a duty to challenge beliefs, in a way that makes absolutely no sense when talking about race or gender (e.g. "Is it right to make fun of MLK?" vs. "Is it right to be male?"). If you don't like having your beliefs challenged, fine; change the channel, go for a walk, take up yoga. Note, though, that you may still be mocked for that, too.

I don't kniw of you are genuinely failing to grasp a simple point. Or being purposely obtuse in order to argue. I never mentioned challenging.

Any

Either way there's not much point in

Hotblack Desiato

Mellor wrote: »

Judaism is equally a choice,

But it is also a race, and non-religious members of the jewish race got persecuted just the same, even those whose families had converted to christianity decades before they were born.

If Buddhists, for example, were routinely mocked, abused everywhere they go, discriminated against for no reason other than their beliefs, all without the slightest retaliation.

If you think buddhism is all about hugs, peace and love then look into the situation in Burma where muslims are being persecuted and killed by buddhists.

Only an idiot would call that acceptable.

'Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot' is a ridiculously childish debating tactic.

Therefore, the inherent idea that religion is fair game for all sorts of abuse is fundamentally wrong.

But you haven't made a case why, apart from that people may get offended, which isn't a case at all.
And if religion can get a free pass from criticism or mockery, why not politicial parties and leaders? As an earlier post pointed out, satire is an important tool to remind those in power of the boundaries of their power, 'to afflict the comfortable'. To put a brake on this is dangerous. For religious leaders to have unquestioned power is also dangerous.

But the CH cartoon wasn't critical discussion, it was mocking - lets not pretend otherwise.

What was being mocked was the idea that a cartoon could be used to justify violence or murder. Which, let's face it, is a bloody ludicrous idea.

InTheTrees

As regards Free Speech.

I dont know whether its been mentioned yet but there was a famous first ammendmant (Freedom of Speech) case in the US which was decided by the Supreme Court, in which one of the Judges proposed the "test" of "shouting fire in a crowded theater":

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean the right to purposely offend people.

Of course it does.

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You soon run into all sorts of problems when people say things that you are bound to find offensive, as the sort of people who thrive on that sort of freedom are simply people who have no consideration for other people besides themselves. Is that the sort of society you would prefer to live in?

If you mean a society where stand up comedy isnt illegal then yes, thats my kind of society.

K4t

InTheTrees wrote: »

As regards Free Speech.

I dont know whether its been mentioned yet but there was a famous first ammendmant (Freedom of Speech) case in the US which was decided by the Supreme Court, in which one of the Judges proposed the "test" of "shouting fire in a crowded theater":

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

pauldla

Mellor wrote: »

I don't kniw of you are genuinely failing to grasp a simple point. Or being purposely obtuse in order to argue. I never mentioned challenging.

Any

Either way there's not much point in

Well we seem to be getting hung up on the use of lampoon (or I seem to be, anyway). I'm having trouble thinking of examples of racist lampoons, as mentioned by you in #43. IMO once a lampoon starts overtly using racism to deliver its sting, it's no longer a lampoon.

Humour challenges belief; it's very useful that way. When used well, it can show the Emperor to be absolutely bollock naked. In the nip. Not a stitch. Which, I suppose, is the reason why satirists sometimes lead short, uncomfortably pointy lives.

InTheTrees

K4t wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens video

Very nice.

He never really dismissed Holmes either, he expanded on it by going back which was interesting.

I think the "fire in a theatre" analogy is still a good way of describing the concept to people that dont understand the concept of Free Speech at all. (As evidenced by some posters on this thread!)

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Again you are just saying platitudes without even any consistency . Your whole argument hinges on the notion of

''a person to be conscious of how they express themselves so as not to cause offence to other people.''

Can you not see just how unworkable this is ? Who decides what causes offence ?

But it's already working? There already ARE restrictions upon freedom of speech, and people have a responsibility to adhere to those restrictions.

Who decides what causes offence? General consensus I suppose, depends entirely on your audience. In the same way as there's no such thing as free speech on Boards, there are infractions handed out to those who post something that is generally considered by it's audience to be offensive (and it has to be said that this forum to it's credit is more lenient than most, but that's probably due to the standard of civility in here too as opposed to one of the more high traffic contentious forums like soccer for instance).

You yourself showed no consistency in your earlier post. You agreed that abortion information should not be banned even though it offended a large section of our society and yet you took steps to ban graphic pro life
posters ?

Abortion information was intended to inform, the prolife posters were simply intended to be offensive.

So does anyone and everyone on a walk down town say yeah that poster is ok but that one must come down ?

Ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you present a situation where there are only two extreme options and no possibility of people being able to use their best judgment or behave in a reasonable manner.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Of course it does.

Unlimited freedom of speech does that. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech.

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you mean a society where stand up comedy isnt illegal then yes, thats my kind of society.

Nobody suggested such a dystopian alternative. Free speech is not an "all or nothing" concept.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abortion information was intended to inform, the prolife posters were simply intended to be offensive.



.









.

And who decides what is meant to be offensive ? You ? you keep avoiding that question . And that is all there is to it really.

So can you answer it this time please .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

And who decides what is meant to be offensive ? You ? you keep avoiding that question . And that is all there is to it really.

So can you answer it this time please .

I didn't avoid it? I even re-typed the question and addressed it and answered it specifically -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who decides what causes offence? General consensus I suppose, depends entirely on your audience. In the same way as there's no such thing as free speech on Boards, there are infractions handed out to those who post something that is generally considered by it's audience to be offensive (and it has to be said that this forum to it's credit is more lenient than most, but that's probably due to the standard of civility in here too as opposed to one of the more high traffic contentious forums like soccer for instance).

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't avoid it? I even re-typed the question and addressed it and answered it specifically -

Again another non answer, So when you decided to have those posters removed was that general consensus ?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression does not mean the right to purposely offend people.

InTheTrees wrote:

Of course it does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unlimited freedom of speech does that. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech.

Your response makes no sense...

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody suggested such a dystopian alternative. Free speech is not an "all or nothing" concept.

You did.

You want to stop people intentionally offending others.

Except now you say its okay for comedians to do it?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Again another non answer

If you're going to summarily dismiss every single reply, could you at least tell me now so I'm not wasting my time in answering your questions and you simply dismissing my replies as apple pie and non-answers, etc.

It's really not very conducive to discussion when you haven't even offered any opinion of your own on where you draw the line with regard to your standards you apply to freedom of speech?

Where DO you draw the line? No need for specific scenarios, just a general idea would do. Just so I have at least some idea where you stand on the issue.

So when you decided to have those posters removed was that general consensus ?

I didn't decide to have the posters removed, the Gardaí decided that. I found the posters offensive and I made a complaint. Turns out the general consensus was that they were indeed offensive, and so they were ordered to be removed.

If someone finds something offensive, they are entitled to make a complaint about it. How seriously that complaint is taken, depends on whether the general consensus agrees that it is indeed offensive.

In the case of abortion information, someone made a complaint, general consensus deemed it offensive, I didn't agree with the general consensus, but I accepted their decision. If I cared strongly enough about it, I would have fought harder against the general consensus.

One eyed Jack

InTheTrees wrote: »

You did.

You want to stop people intentionally offending others.

Except now you say its okay for comedians to do it?

Why do you find the idea of stopping people intentionally offending other people offensive? The alternative is hardly conducive to a civilised society, is it? You're going to have people who will say what they like to who they like and the implication is that they should suffer no consequences for their actions?

I never said it was acceptable for comedians to do it either btw. At the moment I'm trying to get my head around this whole concept of 'roasting' people, and to that end I sat through a half hour of "The roasting of Justin Bieber" the other night on Comedy Central. I didn't find it in the slightest bit humorous. It was just a constant stream of utterly vile insults. I could only take half an hour of it before I judged it to be an utterly pointless exercise.

I just don't get what motive is behind people who want the freedom to humiliate other people? It just strikes me as an utterly hateful and spiteful exercise. I just don't get it?

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're going to summarily dismiss every single reply, could you at least tell me now so I'm not wasting my time in answering your questions and you simply dismissing my replies as apple pie and non-answers, etc.

It's really not very conducive to discussion when you haven't even offered any opinion of your own on where you draw the line with regard to your standards you apply to freedom of speech?

Where DO you draw the line? No need for specific scenarios, just a general idea would do. Just so I have at least some idea where you stand on the issue.





I didn't decide to have the posters removed, the Gardaí decided that. I found the posters offensive and I made a complaint. Turns out the general consensus was that they were indeed offensive, and so they were ordered to be removed.

If someone finds something offensive, they are entitled to make a complaint about it. How seriously that complaint is taken, depends on whether the general consensus agrees that it is indeed offensive.

In the case of abortion information, someone made a complaint, general consensus deemed it offensive, I didn't agree with the general consensus, but I accepted their decision. If I cared strongly enough about it, I would have fought harder against the general consensus.

And you don't see the inconsistency in your position ? you deem pro abortion information desirable and anti abortion information ( no matter how graphic) undesirable ?

And saying you went to the Garda is a cop out , as an aside I would say they exceeded their powers but that is Ireland for you . You decided they were unacceptable and you too steps to remove them .That makes you no different than Dr Selim Ali threatening to invoke the blasphemy law or the Iona crown running to the courts at every opportunity.

My position is quite simple , I see free speech and free expression as a right and not as a privilege . So the starting point should be nothing is forbidden - from there you give reasons as to what should be restricted and if a case is made we pass laws accordingly , thus the laws on defamation ,the anti racist laws, lots of the criminal law and so on.

So your notion of I don't like that poster but I like our poster is just thrown out the door . As is the Islamic idea of I don't like that cartoon or that book.

And not alone is it not a right not to be offended , it is our duty as responsible citizens to set out to offend .

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't get what motive is behind people who want the freedom to humiliate other people? It just strikes me as an utterly hateful and spiteful exercise. I just don't get it?

Try and think how the alternative would be.

Massive state censorship in an effort to avoid anyone being offended by anything.

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you find the idea of stopping people intentionally offending other people offensive? The alternative is hardly conducive to a civilised society, is it? You're going to have people who will say what they like to who they like and the implication is that they should suffer no consequences for their actions?

Umm.

You think its bad to have people "who will say what they like to who they like"?



Also there are many consequences for abusing ones right to freedom of speech.

InTheTrees

K4t wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't get it?

Just watch the Hitchens clip. Its only 20 minutes. Sure he's a bit of a blow hard but it gives you a good start.

obplayer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you find the idea of stopping people intentionally offending other people offensive? The alternative is hardly conducive to a civilised society, is it? You're going to have people who will say what they like to who they like and the implication is that they should suffer no consequences for their actions?

I never said it was acceptable for comedians to do it either btw. At the moment I'm trying to get my head around this whole concept of 'roasting' people, and to that end I sat through a half hour of "The roasting of Justin Bieber" the other night on Comedy Central. I didn't find it in the slightest bit humorous. It was just a constant stream of utterly vile insults. I could only take half an hour of it before I judged it to be an utterly pointless exercise.

I just don't get what motive is behind people who want the freedom to humiliate other people? It just strikes me as an utterly hateful and spiteful exercise. I just don't get it?

I know this has been said before but I will try again. It is because who defines offensive? And also what is the appropriate response to being offended? Why can't the response be to be similarly offensive? Why does it have to be violence, the threat of violence? No one is forcing people to read or watch or listen to things they find offensive. In your example of watching a show which you found vile and humorless why didn't you just switch it off a great deal sooner? Why do you feel the need to ban other people from watching it?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

And you don't see the inconsistency in your position ? you deem pro abortion information desirable and anti abortion information ( no matter how graphic) undesirable ?

Well as long as you're putting words in my mouth like...

I never said I deem all anti-abortion information undesirable. I have standards. That's why I would have had no issue with the anti-abortion campaign distributing information, but such an "in your face" display as I was about to go into a restaurant to eat? Well quite frankly they can shag off tbh. It was disgusting.

And saying you went to the Garda is a cop out , as an aside I would say they exceeded their powers but that is Ireland for you . You decided they were unacceptable and you too steps to remove them . That makes you no different than Dr Selim Ali threatening to invoke the blasphemy law or the Iona crown running to the courts at every opportunity.

They didn't exceed their powers if you'd care to check Irish laws on freedom of speech, they simply enforced the law. It doesn't make me any different to them, but I'm not sure what your point is? They're not allowed say what they like either and we're all held to the same standard.

My position is quite simple , I see free speech and free expression as a right and not as a privilege . So the starting point should be nothing is forbidden - from there you give reasons as to what should be restricted and if a case is made we pass laws accordingly , thus the laws on defamation ,the anti racist laws, lots of the criminal law and so on.

Exactly, and when people are offended, they are entitled to campaign for more laws to restrict what people should be allowed to say, just like you're allowed to oppose the introduction of further restrictions.

The judicial system doesn't have either the time nor the resources to entertain your "Can I say this? Can I say this then? How about this?" nonsense tbh. Say it, and you'll very quickly find out whether you can or can't say it. Pope Frank would lilely take a pop at you for insulting his mother, I wouldn't nearly be so reactionary :pac:

The reaction to your utterance could vary from simply being blanked, to being shot - depends on your audience.

So your notion of I don't like that poster but I like our poster is just thrown out the door . As is the Islamic idea of I don't like that cartoon or that book.

By YOUR standards, fair enough, but are your standards shared by the general consensus? On this thread they are, but are they shared by society? I don't think they are.

And not alone is it not a right not to be offended , it is our duty as responsible citizens to set out to offend .

I never argued that I had any right to be offended? It just happens as a consequence of something I find, y'know, offensive. I don't see it as my duty as a responsible citizen to set out to offend anyone. That's just uncivilised. I see it as my duty as a responsible citizen to be considerate of other people in society. Treat other people as I would like them to treat me.

It's really not that difficult to be considerate of other people, and there's a much better chance of a good outcome for all concerned than there is if I go running my mouth off because "I know my rights".

One eyed Jack

obplayer wrote: »

I know this has been said before but I will try again. It is because who defines offensive? And also what is the appropriate response to being offended?

Society sets the standard for what is acceptable and what is deemed offensive.

Why can't the response be to be similarly offensive?

Because where does that get anyone? What does it achieve? It doesn't promote tolerance or understanding, so what IS the point?

Why does it have to be violence, the threat of violence?

Because other people have different standards?

No one is forcing people to read or watch or listen to things they find offensive.

By putting these things in the public domain, a shared space, people will see it or hear it or read it and their offence is an instinctive reaction. Not everyone is actually capable of being so Vulcan-like that they can so easily dismiss things they find offensive as other people.

In your example of watching a show which you found vile and humorless why didn't you just switch it off a great deal sooner? Why do you feel the need to ban other people from watching it?

I wanted to get a better understanding of what it is that people get out of the whole idea - they find insulting people is funny. Clearly I do not possess the intellect required in order to appreciate such a high-brow, edgy and nouveau form of entertainment.

I don't feel the need to ban other people from watching it if that's what they want to do. I'm reasonable like that.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well as long as you're putting words in my mouth like...

I never said I deem all anti-abortion information undesirable. I have standards. That's why I would have had no issue with the anti-abortion campaign distributing information, but such an "in your face" display as I was about to go into a restaurant to eat? Well quite frankly they can shag off tbh. It was disgusting.



It's really not that difficult to be considerate of other people, and there's a much better chance of a good outcome for all concerned than there is if I go running my mouth off because "I know my rights".

I never said you said ALL anti-abortion information was undesirable , so no one is putting words in your mouth . But you still don't see the inconsistency in your position . I suppose the best way to illustrate it for you is to take a bit of advice proffered on another thread-

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

And you are not obliged to dwell on the poster , or buy CH or read The Satanic Verses , or watch Justin Bieber being roasted . But it seems you like being offended

As for being considerate to other people , that in the context of this discussion is another meaningless statement . Buts let use it as a formula for a minute deciding what we can say or print .

Should we ban those holocaust deniers from Trinity ? Should we ban Nigel Farrage ? Should we ban those far rights groups meeting in Cork ?
They are all offensive to the Liberal Left .

Should we ban all abortion information, all neutral sex education , any LGBT expression while employed in schools, in fact any discussion of the 'gay lifestyle', any criticism of religion ? They are all offensive to the RCC.

Sport on Sunday,Shopping on Sunday,Work on Sunday etc
All offensive to the Ian Paisley mob.

Any image of Mohammed , any criticism of Islam, music, tattoos , all western art , co-ed schools-gyms-sports , All are offensive to Islam.

And that is before we even get to all the other sectional interest groups, lobby groups and sundry serial ''deeply offended'' shower of individuals

See where this is going ? Your formula as well as being mealy mouthed is just unworkable .

Who wants to go back to the world of banned books where on foot of a single complaint a work of art could be banned .Indeed Kate O'Brien's novel was banned for a single phrase , when a character saw two men in ''the embrace of love' . In one year alone over 1000 books were banned and all because someone somewhere was offended and lodged a complaint. No thanks.

InTheTrees

marienbad wrote: »

As for being considerate to other people ,

I know.

The real danger to society is people who profess to be acting for our own good by banning speech they deem offensive.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society sets the standard for what is acceptable and what is deemed offensive.

French society's standard is that Charlie Hebdo is perfectly acceptable and breaks no law.

Or did you mean that the least tolerant people in society get to set the standards for everyone?

Or the most violent people?

Because where does that get anyone? What does it achieve? It doesn't promote tolerance or understanding, so what IS the point?

If you still don't get this, I don't think you ever will.

By putting these things in the public domain, a shared space, people will see it or hear it or read it and their offence is an instinctive reaction. Not everyone is actually capable of being so Vulcan-like that they can so easily dismiss things they find offensive as other people.

Yeah them poor muslims just can't help themselves from grabbing AK47s when they see a cartoon :rolleyes:

You are being far more offensive to muslims than Charlie Hebdo. You are taking away from them their intellect and judgment and responsibility for their actions, and reducing them to the level of mindless automatons 'who can't help it'.

They can help it.

I don't feel the need to ban other people from watching it if that's what they want to do. I'm reasonable like that.

If muslims said it was offensive, would you want to ban it then?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I never said you said ALL anti-abortion information was undesirable , so no one is putting words in your mouth . But you still don't see the inconsistency in your position . I suppose the best way to illustrate it for you is to take a bit of advice proffered on another thread-

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

And you are not obliged to dwell on the poster , or buy CH or read The Satanic Verses , or watch Justin Bieber being roasted . But it seems you like being offended

Well as long as you're going to assume my position and argue against things I never said...

Do you understand the concept of "general consensus" at all? You imply that I want a blanket ban on things when I never said any such thing. You're implying that I'm being inconsistent because I feel differently about completely different scenarios, and then you imagine I like being offended.

It seems you've made up my mind for me instead of actually bothering to listen to anything I've actually said.

As for being considerate to other people , that in the context of this discussion is another meaningless statement . Buts let use it as a formula for a minute deciding what we can say or print.

You want to argue about the context of this discussion when you toddle off through my posts in other discussions and bring them up in this one?

Well, as long as you're being consistent... oh, you're not, are you?

Should we ban those holocaust deniers from Trinity ? Should we ban Nigel Farrage ? Should we ban those far rights groups meeting in Cork ?
They are all offensive to the Liberal Left .

Should we ban all abortion information, all neutral sex education , any LGBT expression while employed in schools, in fact any discussion of the 'gay lifestyle', any criticism of religion ? They are all offensive to the RCC.

Sport on Sunday,Shopping on Sunday,Work on Sunday etc
All offensive to the Ian Paisley mob.

Any image of Mohammed , any criticism of Islam, music, tattoos , all western art , co-ed schools-gyms-sports , All are offensive to Islam.

And that is before we even get to all the other sectional interest groups, lobby groups and sundry serial ''deeply offended'' shower of individuals

See where this is going ? Your formula as well as being mealy mouthed is just unworkable.

Yes, I see where you're going alright -

"We should only ban what I find offensive, anything anyone else finds offensive, well they're just being mealy mouthed and inconsistent".

Meanwhile, general consensus seems to work for everyone else.

Who wants to go back to the world of banned books where on foot of a single complaint a work of art could be banned .Indeed Kate O'Brien's novel was banned for a single phrase , when a character saw two men in ''the embrace of love' . In one year alone over 1000 books were banned and all because someone somewhere was offended and lodged a complaint. No thanks.

Again it seems, the concept of 'general consensus" is lost on you.

There's not much point in trying to discuss something such as freedom of speech with someone who wants their right to free speech recognised by everyone else, whilst dismissing everyone else's point of view.

In Saudi Arabia, general consensus is that females are second class citizens.
Should they give up fighting for their rights?

Nobody is dismissing your right to hold and express a view, they're dismissing that view, the view that censorship based on "General Consensus" is a bad idea. marienbad has gone to great lengths to give you several examples of this.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In Saudi Arabia, general consensus is that females are second class citizens.
Should they give up fighting for their rights?

And if I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia I could probably answer that question, but as it stands, they're over there, we're over here, so by our own standards over here - we're not going to go over there and impose our standards upon them, and then suggest that they have no right to come over here imposing their standards upon us, because that would be... inconsistent.

Nobody is dismissing your right to hold and express a view, they're dismissing that view, the view that censorship based on "General Consensus" is a bad idea. marienbad has gone to great lengths to give you several examples of this.

But the view that censorship is based upon general consensus is the reason why we have limits on free speech.

That's how things already work, and it seems to work quite well. It's how we function as a civilised society that holds ourselves up as a model of the way things should be in the Middle East where if someone says something I find offensive, I can shoot them.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia I could probably answer that question, but as it stands, they're over there, we're over here, so by our own standards over here - we're not going to go over there and impose our standards upon them, and then suggest that they have no right to come over here imposing their standards upon us, because that would be... inconsistent.

I never said any of that. I asked should they be fighting for their rights? Given that general consensus says they are second class citizens. Should they (in your opinion) just agree and give up the fight for recognition?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the view that censorship is based upon general consensus is the reason why we have limits on free speech.

That's how things already work, and it seems to work quite well. It's how we function as a civilised society that holds ourselves up as a model of the way things should be in the Middle East where if someone says something I find offensive, I can shoot them.

Not really. I think you're conflating the issue of censorship (as a law) and self censorship (responsibility).

There's a very important difference.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never said any of that. I asked should they be fighting for their rights? Given that general consensus says they are second class citizens. Should they (in your opinion) just agree and give up the fight for recognition?

And you missed my point that if I was actually born and raised in Saudi Arabia, I would probably agree with the general consensus that says women are second class citizens, so my answer would be completely inconsistent with my answer having been born and raised in the West.

In the West, I don't particularly care enough about women in Saudi Arabia that I'm going to see it as my right to interfere in the way their society has worked for thousands of years and impose my Western standards upon them.

You can't really complain about Middle Eastern standards being imposed upon you if you see nothing wrong with imposing your own Western standards upon them.

Not really. I think you're conflating the issue of censorship (as a law) and self censorship (responsibility).

There's a very important difference.

Censorship as a law imposes a standard of responsibility upon all the citizens to whom that law applies. While we have the right to freedom of speech, we have a responsibility to adhere to the restrictions on what we can say.

It's not a trick question. In your opinion do you think that women in Saudi Arabia should stop fighting for their rights based upon the general consensus in Saudi Arabia that they are second class citizens?

I'm not asking you to go and fight for them. I'm asking if you believe that they should give up fighting for their rights?

I'm just asking for your opinion.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not a trick question. In your opinion do you think that women in Saudi Arabia should stop fighting for their rights based upon the general consensus in Saudi Arabia that they are second class citizens?

I'm not asking you to go and fight for them. I'm asking if you believe that they should give up fighting for their rights?

I know it's not a trick question, but can you not see that it's not a simple answer as I would be simply imposing my Western standards upon a society which I know virtually nothing about?

The general consensus in the West is that women in Saudi Arabia are second class citizens, but is that the general consensus among women in Saudi Arabia itself? I don't know if it is?

How can you personally holding a belief about what someone else should do influence or affect them in the slightest?
Example - I believe that Michael O'Leary should run for government some day.
How on earth can me holding that opinion affect Michael O'Leary?

It's a simple and straightforward question. My answer is no. I believe they should continue their fight for equal status.

What's your opinion on the matter?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How can you personally holding a belief about what someone else should do influence or affect them in the slightest?
Example - I believe that Michael O'Leary should run for government some day.
How on earth can me holding that opinion affect Michael O'Leary?

It's a simple and straightforward question. My answer is no. I believe they should continue their fight for equal status.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Here's my opinion on the matter -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're not far wrong in fairness. I don't know much about these conflicts in the Middle East, Africa or Eastern Europe, simply because I haven't time to be giving to these issues when I'm more concerned with issues in my own community.

Issues on a global scale that I have absolutely no control over and that I simply cannot do anything about really don't register that high on the priority scale of my limited resources.

If I were to ask my sister who converted to Islam, I'm sure her answer would be different to yours. She seems quite happy with her decision. Another female friend of mine also converted to Islam and seems quite happy in her relationship. They don't feel as though they are treated as second class citizens?

If I were to tell them they are treated as second class citizens, they'd be well within their rights to ask "What the fcuk do you know about it?". The answer is - not a whole lot.

You want a simple yes or no answer to the question above, and I can't give you one because I have no idea how their society functions, so I have no idea whether they actually ARE considered second class citizens.

In YOUR opinion they are, but can you not see that is simply you judging a whole society by your standards?

It'd simply be foolish to offer an opinion on something I know nothing about.

Can you not just answer the question?

It really is far more simple than you're making it out to be. I'm judging nobody. I'm of the opinion that men and women are equal. And I'm happy for people that share my opinion to fight for it to become law.

I think it's clear that you're dodging the question because the answer rests uncomfortably with your support for General Consensus as a basis for anything really.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you not just answer the question?

It really is far more simple than you're making it out to be.

No, I can't just answer the question with a simple answer because I don't know enough about society in Saudi Arabia to offer an opinion on the matter.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know it's not a trick question, but can you not see that it's not a simple answer as I would be simply imposing my Western standards upon a society which I know virtually nothing about?

The general consensus in the West is that women in Saudi Arabia are second class citizens, but is that the general consensus among women in Saudi Arabia itself? I don't know if it is?

By definition it is, if women are given fewer rights than men, and if women are seen as legally subordinate to men

in Saudi, men are officially 'guardians' of the women in their family, legally, they are defined as dependent subjects of the men

It's really stretching the boundaries of cultural relativism to say that we can not describe women in Saudi Arabia as second class citizens.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

French society's standard is that Charlie Hebdo is perfectly acceptable and breaks no law.

Or did you mean that the least tolerant people in society get to set the standards for everyone?

Or the most violent people?

What's tolerant about people who choose to humiliate other people? Do you expect that you should be able to tie their hands behind their back and kick seven colours out of them, but if they retaliate - "the bastards!".

If you still don't get this, I don't think you ever will.

I don't think most people would get the idea that anyone should have the right to humiliate other people tbh. That's a slippery slope.

Yeah them poor muslims just can't help themselves from grabbing AK47s when they see a cartoon :rolleyes:

You are being far more offensive to muslims than Charlie Hebdo. You are taking away from them their intellect and judgment and responsibility for their actions, and reducing them to the level of mindless automatons 'who can't help it'.

They can help it.

You're playing down the significance of CH's actions, I suppose they couldn't help themselves either. They should have no responsibility for their actions. They have their rights, and responsibility is the standard for everyone else.

If muslims said it was offensive, would you want to ban it then?

I would, because I would see it as unnecessary humiliation.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

By definition it is, if women are given fewer rights than men, and if women are seen as legally subordinate to men

in Saudi, men are officially 'guardians' of the women in their family, legally, they are defined as dependent subjects of the men

It's really stretching the boundaries of cultural relativism to say that we can not describe women in Saudi Arabia as second class citizens.

What's being stretched here is the parameters of any meaningful discussion about free speech when we can introduce whatever the hell we like into the discussion and keep moving further and further away from anything that's actually relevant -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Really? This sort of nonsense is why it's bloody impossible to have any sort of a serious conversation about issues in Irish society. What the hell has women's welfare in either Saudi Arabia or Iceland got to do with the price of a can of magic beans in Ireland? Honestly, throwing out stuff like that is just not worth entertaining as it's so far off the point.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's tolerant about people who choose to humiliate other people? Do you expect that you should be able to tie their hands behind their back and kick seven colours out of them, but if they retaliate - "the bastards!".





I don't think most people would get the idea that anyone should have the right to humiliate other people tbh. That's a slippery slope.





You're playing down the significance of CH's actions, I suppose they couldn't help themselves either. They should have no responsibility for their actions. They have their rights, and responsibility is the standard for everyone else.





I would, because I would see it as unnecessary humiliation.

Bullsh1t.
Physically beating someone is assault This is not covered under 'freedom of speech'

If someone shouts racist or blatantly personally abusive comments at someone deliberately to offend them and incite a 'breach of the peace' then they are guilty of an offence under the public order act 1994

If someone persistently targets abusive and offensive behaviour towards an individual over an extended period of time, then this person is guilty of harrassment under the non fatal offenses against the person act 1997

These are specific instances where freedom of speech are legitimately curtailed by legislation

What Charlie Hebdo do does not fall under any of these categories. CH attacks Political cultural and religious practises and ideas. And the right to strongly oppose and challange and disagree with someone else's ideas or practises, or beliefs, are fundamental to the establishment of a democracy

If you are a member of NAMBLA and support their ideas, I have a right to attack your beliefs using the most offensive language I can think of. If you are offended by what I have to say, that's irrelevant. Ideas are not protetected

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's being stretched here is the parameters of any meaningful discussion about free speech when we can introduce whatever the hell we like into the discussion and keep moving further and further away from anything that's actually relevant -

It has a lot to do with the idea of what people can be offended about, and whether they should be protected from offence because it is their culture.

I should be allowed to vocally criticise the treatment of women in fundamentalist islamic states even if some people think that is offensive to their cultural beliefs.

I should be able to deliberately offend people who hold such beliefs.I should be able to walk up to the king of Saudi and call him a misogynist and a tyrant because of the beliefs he holds and the rules he imposes onto women in his kingdom even if to do so, would personally offend him.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it's clear that you're dodging the question because the answer rests uncomfortably with your support for General Consensus as a basis for anything really.

I missed your edit -

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you straight out that I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to be able to agree that they are treated as second class citizens by standards in Saudi Arabia.

You've already formed the opinion in your mind that because I don't support free for all speech in Ireland, that I would agree that women should be treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia.

I just don't see what one has to do with the other, apart from a mere hairs breadth of a connection between them on the basis of the standard of general consensus. I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

If anyone is dodging questions here...

marienbad

One-Eyed Jack , what do you think of this comment ?

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

Bullsh1t.
Physically beating someone is assault This is not covered under 'freedom of speech'

If someone shouts racist or blatantly personally abusive comments at someone deliberately to offend them and incite a 'breach of the peace' then they are guilty of an offence under the public order act 1994

If someone persistently targets abusive and offensive behaviour towards an individual over an extended period of time, then this person is guilty of harrassment under the non fatal offenses against the person act 1997

These are specific instances where freedom of speech are legitimately curtailed by legislation

What Charlie Hebdo do does not fall under any of these categories. CH attacks Political cultural and religious practises and ideas. And the right to strongly oppose and challange and disagree with someone else's ideas or practises, or beliefs, are fundamental to the establishment of a democracy

If you are a member of NAMBLA and support their ideas, I have a right to attack your beliefs using the most offensive language I can think of. If you are offended by what I have to say, that's irrelevant. Ideas are not protetected

Yeesh, this post is all over the place. You've dipped in and out of Irish law, French society, and a dash of pedophilia for the cherry on top.

Where do I even start?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not at all uncomfortable with General Consensus, which is why I asked do most women in Saudi Arabia feel the same way you do?

Whats is this "General Consensus"?

You seem to bring it up in almost every post.

Do you mean laws passed by elected officials?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

One-Eyed Jack , what do you think of this comment ?

''You're not obliged to read the newspaper though, so it's not as if she is ramming anything down people's throats?''

Looks lovely, what's your point?

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".


It's akin to something I'd hear in a school playground tbh.

One eyed Jack

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats is this "General Consensus"?

You seem to bring it up in almost every post.

Do you mean laws passed by elected officials?

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society. Laws are derived from the opinion of the majority in society, and the rights conferred upon all citizens of that society are balanced by their responsibility towards that society.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Looks lovely, what's your point?

I don't mean to be snarky, but honestly, I come here for serious discussion and so far, well, all I've been met with is -

"I have a right to say what I like to who I like and I don't care what you think".


It's akin to something I'd hear in a school playground tbh.

Do you agree with the comment or not ?

And I find your comment deeply offensive , I and the other posters put a lot of efforts into our posts and to have them so trivialised is needlessly out of line .

Maybe you should be banned ?

InTheTrees

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I mean an opinion held by the majority in society.

And does a citizen know what the "general consensus" is?

If I want to make a poster for my upcoming book, how would I know what the "general consensus" is?