Freedom of expression - DPChallenge Forums

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

01/13/2015 07:29:16 AM · #102

Edited to add another image

Message edited by author 2015-01-13 07:38:15.

rooum

01/13/2015 07:38:33 AM · #103

Originally posted by ThingFish:

Edited to add another image

Fine words indeed but wrongly attributed to Voltaire. The quote is by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Words to stand by.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

01/13/2015 08:42:28 AM · #104

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."

George Orwell

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/13/2015 09:05:02 AM · #105

Originally posted by ubique:

Believing in free speech is hard. You have to be prepared to hear things you don't like.

But freedom of expression is not a defence for libel or slander, nor for perjury, nor for child pornography. It's not a defence for expressly inciting unlawful killing, nor for expressly inciting riots, burning and looting property, and other unlawful acts. It's not a defence for expressly inciting acts of terrorism. It's not even a defence for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, though that hoary old example merely trivialises the issue, and confuses rather than clarifies.

But 'mean' speech is not the same as those examples. If you wish to outlaw mean, unfair and offensive speech then your position is, "You can't say that because I don't like it". You don't have a right to not be offended.

Saying "I believe in free speech but with civilised limitations" actually means "I do not believe in free speech". No way around that: that's what it means.

Most of us, probably all of us, actually believe in free speech with civilised limitations, at least in some contexts. So we are not Charlie after all.

Very well said. Although I know myself to believe in truly free speech, I think you are right that nearly everyone here falls on the 'please protect our pretty little ears' side of the line... No offense intended, but the 'softness' of the community here is nearly offensive to me sometimes, still love ya'll though.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/13/2015 09:06:49 AM · #106

And I think I just came up with a wonderful entry that will express my feelings and offend nearly everyone here. This should be fun.

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro

01/13/2015 09:11:15 AM · #107

isn't freedom of expression the ability to upset others? something bothers you so you want others to be bothered too.

GeorgesBogaert

Canon RP

01/13/2015 10:03:11 AM · #108

//www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2015/01/11/2003608956

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/13/2015 10:46:50 AM · #109

Originally posted by Mike:

isn't freedom of expression the ability to upset others? something bothers you so you want others to be bothered too.

No. It's the ability to speak freely, regardless of how others feel.

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

01/13/2015 11:08:50 AM · #110

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by ubique:
Believing in free speech is hard. You have to be prepared to hear things you don't like.

But freedom of expression is not a defence for libel or slander, nor for perjury, nor for child pornography. It's not a defence for expressly inciting unlawful killing, nor for expressly inciting riots, burning and looting property, and other unlawful acts. It's not a defence for expressly inciting acts of terrorism. It's not even a defence for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, though that hoary old example merely trivialises the issue, and confuses rather than clarifies.

But 'mean' speech is not the same as those examples. If you wish to outlaw mean, unfair and offensive speech then your position is, "You can't say that because I don't like it". You don't have a right to not be offended.

Saying "I believe in free speech but with civilised limitations" actually means "I do not believe in free speech". No way around that: that's what it means.

Most of us, probably all of us, actually believe in free speech with civilised limitations, at least in some contexts. So we are not Charlie after all.

Very well said. Although I know myself to believe in truly free speech, I think you are right that nearly everyone here falls on the 'please protect our pretty little ears' side of the line... No offense intended, but the 'softness' of the community here is nearly offensive to me sometimes, still love ya'll though.

Softness of the community here? And what about the softness of the rest of the world...especially our great democratic leaders of the 'free" western world...weak-kneed and of no resolve, bending this way and that way as the political winds blow.

01/13/2015 11:08:51 AM · #111

but if others agree with you there is nothing to express and you dont really need protection from this freedom. its only when there is a possible disagreement that one needs the freedom to speak freely.

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

01/13/2015 02:20:42 PM · #112

The following quote from an article by CNN made me pause to think...

Yasir Qadhi, an American cleric with a wide following, said he's not pleased by any depictions of Mohammed, but it's clear that this Hebdo cover, unlike others, is not meant to offend.

Qadhi also said that while he respects the right to free speech, there appears to be a double standard when it comes to what Western society -- and Hebdo -- find suitable for mocking.

"Did you happen to notice any cartoons mocking the death of the cartoonists themselves, and lampooning their work and efforts?" Qadhi asked.

Valid or not? What do you think?

//edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/living/muslims-respond-hebdo/index.html

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2015 02:29:27 PM · #113

I think he's apparently unfamiliar with the magazine since they are (in)famous for their skewering of every religion and political stuffed shirts of all persuasions.

What sort of insensitive boor would suggest satirizing the recent murder of ones brothers, with the implication that the failure to do so immediately somehow represents hypocrisy?

bjoern

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/13/2015 02:32:21 PM · #114

Interesting discussion.

I think there are two extremes where there is little disagreement:

One is if I say to someone that he is such a bleeping bleep of a bleepard (the bleep that covers four letter words in TV, you know) or something and then claiming freedom of speech to avoid consequences is an abuse of that freedom.

The other is I can see a rose and say "This is a nice rose", because, well, who cares.

When Freedom of Speech really matters, is when power (such as Governments, Churches/Religions, Companies, Elders) and the challenging of power is involved. Can you decry abuses of power without being squashed by that same power? That is where I see the difference between areas where Freedom of Speech is there and where it isn't.

As the challenge topic, I don't have any idea yet what I could enter. How to depict that conflict of ethics and power in an aesthetic, but nevertheless pointing, even stinging way? I'm sure it should be feasible within the rules of this site, because for me, Freedom of Speech is not primarily about offending, it's about pointing to abuses of power. I'm really curious what others will enter.

(Edited to fix typo)

Message edited by author 2015-01-13 14:33:04.

neenee1999

Nikon D70

Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II

01/13/2015 02:34:15 PM · #115

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ubique:
Freedom of expression is absolute, otherwise it's not freedom. As we will see when the SC get to grips with this excellent challenge suggestion.

That's kind of insulting to SC, friend. Wildly insulting, in fact. But the good news is, we won't censor your statement :-)

Seriously, though, we're just moderators, we aren't responsible for SETTING those policies, that was done by Drew, Langdon, and their lawyers way back when. Even so, call me naive but I can't see how DPC would be in any way enhanced by removing all content restrictions in the interests of "free expression". We should allow people to insult each other without restriction in the forums? Race-baiting should be OK? We should permit the depiction of any and all acts of violence and sexuality, regardless of how many members left the site in protest?

Now, we have a perfectly viable challenge suggestion (Thank you Christophe, I like it!) even if we DON'T change the rules for the challenge. Are we going to be pilloried if we let the rules stand? Seems rather self-defeating to me.

Completely agree Bear!

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/13/2015 02:36:29 PM · #116

Originally posted by ThingFish:

Wait for the challenge. We shall see, I certainly have an axe to grind on this issue, and it won't make me any new friends here I suspect.

Message edited by author 2015-01-13 14:37:16.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/13/2015 11:23:32 PM · #117

Ha! I read the challenge description and thought to myself, "Self, THIS sounds exactly like a challenge made for Christophe!"

I'm so happy to see that he suggested it!

I can't wait to see the gallery of images!

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

01/14/2015 06:58:25 AM · #118

N/A

Message edited by author 2015-01-14 07:18:19.

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2015 10:29:28 PM · #119

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Freedom of speech does not carry the obligation to speak. If I criticize one position, it does not follow that I must criticize them all, including my own. To follow the cleric's own advice, he would need to either criticize he own religion, or none of the others in the world.

The ideal, in my mind, is to give others the same respect for their beliefs that you expect for your own.

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/15/2015 08:46:58 AM · #120

this isn't really an issue of freedom of expression more than it is an example of a lack of respect.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

01/15/2015 09:44:36 AM · #121

Originally posted by Mike:

this isn't really an issue of freedom of expression more than it is an example of a lack of respect.

If by 'lack of respect' you mean indifference to the feelings of others, you're correct. It's a high price to pay for freedom of expression: knowing that what you say will offend and even infuriate some groups or individuals. But there are some, apparently the Charlie Hebdo staffers among them, who willingly pay that price. Their view would be that it's better than the alternative, which is to leave the controversial unsaid for fear of the consequences. Leaving the controversial unsaid is, to those radical commentators, a form of slavery and subservience.

They do harm in doing good, and they do good in doing harm. They're a bit like Greenpeace: a small bunch of crazed zealots who are always poking spanners into the wheels of progress. But in the end we're better off for having them around than not.

I'd guess that maybe 0.0001% of people genuinely believe in freedom of expression. And that's just about enough to get the job done. Always has been, so far. The rest of us believe in slogans, such as 'Je Suis Charlie'.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/15/2015 09:47:02 AM · #122

Originally posted by Mike:

this isn't really an issue of freedom of expression more than it is an example of a lack of respect.

Q: What kind of world would it be if no one ever said anything that upset another?

A: Very quiet and very bland.

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G

01/15/2015 09:54:51 AM · #123

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Mike:
this isn't really an issue of freedom of expression more than it is an example of a lack of respect.

Q: What kind of world would it be if no one ever said anything that upset another?

A: Very quiet and very bland.

it does make for a good show.

Message edited by author 2015-01-15 09:54:58.

damjanev

Nikon D3200

01/15/2015 10:56:32 AM · #124

"Freedom of speech" concept in the western world is a very weird if not hypocritical.

There seems to be a number of countries (including France) where it is illegal to express some ideas that might offend some groups. One example of this is the denial of the Holocaust in WW2. The French law was extended in 2012 to include denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Claiming freedom of speech and at the same time making some speech (however wrong, disrespectful or ugly it might be) illegal is hypocritical at the very lest. To make this matter even more hypocritical, the French Constitutional Court found the 2012 extension unconstitutional on the grounds of violation of freedom of speech, while the old provisions regarding the Holocaust are still there.

What is the conceptual difference between offending the Holocaust victims' families in France by denying the act and offending Islam in Saudi Arabia? They are both crimes, but we somehow allow the one and condemn the other.

Just to make thing clear, i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the system, not claiming that the genocides and the Holocaust events didn't happen.

Message edited by author 2015-01-15 10:56:57.