| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2015 12:11:16 PM · #126 |
| In response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, France is now arresting people for what they are saying. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 01:27:44 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
In response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, France is now arresting people for what they are saying. |
? Tell me more! |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 01:28:45 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by damjanev:
"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. |
And just to further muddy the waters here, I think of myself as both a supporter of free speech, and a supporter of the idea that we should require (by law) the news and public figures to tell the truth to the best of their ability.
--
In response to your comment:
There's a pretty big difference between insulting someone's stupid unrealistic bronze-age fantasy and the denial of (or attempt to justify) the murder of innocent people. To equate the two is simply INSANE dude.
Message edited by author 2015-01-15 13:32:03. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 02:02:00 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
In response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, France is now arresting people for what they are saying. |
? Tell me more! |
//www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30811401
Message edited by author 2015-01-15 14:02:10. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 02:11:03 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
In response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, France is now arresting people for what they are saying. |
? Tell me more! |
//www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30811401 |
like I said, double standards always exist. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 07:17:05 PM · #131 |
it's not the first time folks in france have been charged with speech violations.
some folks at charlie hebdo have been charged with speech violations due to the content they print. it's news today IMO because it is. it won't be news tomorrow. the comic who was arrested - has been on multiple occasions.
//www.npr.org/2015/01/15/377526973/paris-attacks-bring-new-attention-to-free-speech-laws-in-france |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 08:56:35 PM · #132 |
I enjoy what Ross Douthat of the New York Times had to say:
"There is no duty to blaspheme, a society̢۪s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid....Again, liberalism doesn̢۪t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it̢۪s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive." |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 09:16:44 PM · #133 |
you are still missing the point. the point of charlie hebdo is not to insult or blaspheme but to express deeply felt moral outrage, however it may be received.
Pope Francis also missed the point. (Admittedly his humour leaves a lot to be desired; in an interview with a woman about woman in the church he tried to make a joke about the problems stemming from women coming from man's rib). |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 11:36:53 PM · #134 |
Actually I'm pretty sure the point of Charlie IS to poke fingers in people's eyes. I could have a deeply convicting conversation with a lesbian without calling her a d***. I could have be morally outraged at a black man without calling him a n****** and I can be very much against militant Islam without depicting the prophet. All three actions could be equally offensive to their respective targets and it would serve no common good to do so. Frankly I thought a while about whether I should asterisk those words out because I know they are inflammatory, but we need to understand that drawing pictures of Mohammed, though it means nothing to us, is quite offensive to a devout Muslim.
So while I understand the benefit to society to have laws that would keep Charlie from legal jeopardy, I have little to no respect for what they do and feel that society itself has every right (and even perhaps obligation) to discourage such behavior.
Edit: I decided to go back and asterisk them after all. Better safe than sorry.
Message edited by author 2015-01-15 23:39:37. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 11:48:44 PM · #135 |
| not the same, although I'm not all that sure what you mean by a "deeply convicting conversation" or by "I could have be morally outraged." possibly my vernacular is lacking. |
|
|
|
01/15/2015 11:56:08 PM · #136 |
Is choosing to not speak itself an act of freedom of expression?
No. It's an act of self-censorship. If you say something other than what you think, then you are self-censoring. We do it because of either fear of the consequences, or to avoid giving offence.
The term freedom of expression begs the question of veracity. It assumes that we say what we believe.
Saying nothing is a legitimate act of freedom of expression only for those who think nothing.
Not speaking may be prudent, but it's not freedom. Self-censorship is the most insidious of all forms of thought control. It's the button all the tyrants of history have pushed so successfully: first get them to suppress what they really think, and then you can tell them what they think they think.
(Typo)
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 00:13:44. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:10:09 AM · #137 |
Is chosing to asterisk words that you were really thinking itself an act of freedom of expression?
No. Of course it's self censorship again. If we don't wish to be associated with a word why disguise it with such a patently ridiculous false moustache and improbable hat. Surely those offended by the word will see through your disguse? So what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:15:50 AM · #138 |
Ubique and I have never been so well aligned in our views.
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 00:16:07. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:30:42 AM · #139 |
I'm not sure I buy what you're saying, Paul: If I find a word, or a thought, so reprehensible that I don't WANT to utter it, but if for moral reasons I feel obliged to refer to it, then how is using a euphemism not acceptable?
Are you really drawing a moral distinction between "If you EVER call my wife a 'cunt' again I'll deck you!" and "If you ever use the C-word in reference to my wife again, I'll deck you!"
|
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:32:23 AM · #140 |
| So far I have said nothing. It doesn't mean I haven't been thinking. I am trying to distill my thoughts about this debate without being overly influenced by any particular viewpoint. I think I believe that freedom of expression should be pretty broad, but stop short of incitement to hate, injure or kill others. Minor offenses should be as water off a duck's back - sticks and stones etc. But when extremists of any stripe make concerted efforts to radicalize those that they can to perform heinous deeds, that is different and should not be tolerated. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:34:43 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Is chosing to asterisk words that you were really thinking itself an act of freedom of expression?
No. Of course it's self censorship again. If we don't wish to be associated with a word why disguise it with such a patently ridiculous false moustache and improbable hat. Surely those offended by the word will see through your disguse? So what's the difference? |
The difference is the asterisks say, "although this word is being used in the context of our conversation, I respect the potential for harm it can cause."
Self-censoring may not be "freedom", but it is maturity. The mature realize we are no less free though we practice self-restraint. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:48:38 AM · #142 |
I'm not saying that you are obliged to be offensive Doc. What I'm saying is how is the asterisked word less offensive than the real word, in the perfectly legitimate context in which you used it?
My view is that the offensiveness is not diminished by the disguise. But in your context, neither version is offensive. One is self-censored, to no effect. Presumably your point is that you can say, 'I didn't say nigger'. But you did, either way.
I'm just ranting in favour of the l-word.
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 00:50:16. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 12:57:38 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure I buy what you're saying, Paul: If I find a word, or a thought, so reprehensible that I don't WANT to utter it, but if for moral reasons I feel obliged to refer to it, then how is using a euphemism not acceptable?
Are you really drawing a moral distinction between "If you EVER call my wife a 'cunt' again I'll deck you!" and "If you ever use the C-word in reference to my wife again, I'll deck you!" |
No mate. A logical distinction, in that there isn't one. It's a civilised self-delusion, and not one I'm opposed to in practice. Only in principle. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 01:03:46 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by jomari:
So far I have said nothing. It doesn't mean I haven't been thinking. I am trying to distill my thoughts about this debate without being overly influenced by any particular viewpoint. I think I believe that freedom of expression should be pretty broad, but stop short of incitement to hate, injure or kill others. Minor offenses should be as water off a duck's back - sticks and stones etc. But when extremists of any stripe make concerted efforts to radicalize those that they can to perform heinous deeds, that is different and should not be tolerated. |
I don't say that saying nothing means you think nothing. I say that thinking something but saying nothing isn't an act of freedom of expression. It's rather an act of prudence, consideration or apathy. All perfectly good reasons to choose to say bugger-all. But what it cannot be is an act of freedom of expression, because expression is assumed to be the manifestation of thought. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 01:08:55 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I'm not saying that you are obliged to be offensive Doc. What I'm saying is how is the asterisked word less offensive than the real word, in the perfectly legitimate context in which you used it?
My view is that the offensiveness is not diminished by the disguise. But in your context, neither version is offensive. One is self-censored, to no effect. Presumably your point is that you can say, 'I didn't say nigger'. But you did, either way.
I'm just ranting in favour of the l-word. |
I understand this, and though I conjure up the word in either case, because I went out of my way to alter it, a reader who doesn't know me does know, at the least, that I know the word can offend. Get my drift? |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 05:19:36 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I understand this, and though I conjure up the word in either case, because I went out of my way to alter it, a reader who doesn't know me does know, at the least, that I know the word can offend. Get my drift? |
I do. It's a good point, with the effect of qualifying your values as well as presenting your argument. Reminds me about something along the lines of "first do no harm". Thank you. |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 06:27:27 AM · #147 |
give me a definition of the word expression and than maybe we can have a meaningful talk
|
|
|
|
01/16/2015 06:49:07 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by cutout:
give me a definition of the word expression and than maybe we can have a meaningful talk |
Expression (n): referring to the **** that one can ******* |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 06:53:17 AM · #149 |
| halve of the words are censored,so i really dont know |
|
|
|
01/16/2015 07:10:04 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Is choosing to not speak itself an act of freedom of expression?
No. It's an act of self-censorship. If you say something other than what you think, then you are self-censoring. We do it because of either fear of the consequences, or to avoid giving offence.
The term freedom of expression begs the question of veracity. It assumes that we say what we believe.
Saying nothing is a legitimate act of freedom of expression only for those who think nothing.
Not speaking may be prudent, but it's not freedom. Self-censorship is the most insidious of all forms of thought control. It's the button all the tyrants of history have pushed so successfully: first get them to suppress what they really think, and then you can tell them what they think they think.
(Typo) |
a violent response, can be argued is a form of expression. why do you feel that one ought to be able to say something over the top and not be met with an over the top response? words arent just words, there are varying levels of extremity in their meanings and their are varying levels of extremity in responses.
you could call my wife a cunt and i could respond in a myriad of ways, i could agree, ignore you, laugh, i could punch you in the face or I could kill you. the last two options, punching you in the face and killing you, would be considered violent responses and would most likely land me in trouble, but yet they are still a form of expression.
legalities aside, i bet if 10 people saw me punch you in the face over your choice of words, i bet at least 9 would say i was justified in punching you. and i bet all 10 would say i was wrong for killing you. are you saying that i shouldn't have those two options and that i should peacefully accept your expression and self censor mine?
choosing not to say or do something isn't self-censorship, its having restraint and knowing that actions can be met with unequal reactions and sometimes over reactions. just because you can express your yourself doesn't always mean that you should, you always have to weigh the consequences.
government involvement in freedom of expression can be seen in two ways, one is to oppress the freedoms for control, the other is merely that we are stupid emotional creatures who far to often act impulsively and we need to be regulated to maintain a civil society. censorship isn't always about tyranny, its about maintaining order.
Message edited by author 2015-01-16 07:12:59. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 08:06:31 AM EDT.
