| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2015 03:13:11 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Actually, I do understand what you are saying. I'm just disagreeing that silence is not a form of expression. |
Well I have given it my best shot. You are not obliged to respect my authoritah. But that day will come. As long as you remain silent, you are mine to bend to my will. [diabolical cackle, fade to black] |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 03:24:00 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Actually, I do understand what you are saying. I'm just disagreeing that silence is not a form of expression. |
Well I have given it my best shot. You are not obliged to respect my authoritah. But that day will come. As long as you remain silent, you are mine to bend to my will. [diabolical cackle, fade to black] |
There do exit scenarios where silence most certainly cannot be misconstrued as a sign of weakness, agreement, or an invitation to bend the will of the person you are confronting.
There were many instances during my career in the police force where I said absolutely nothing and to this day I remain convinced that my approach was never viewed as a failure on my part to express myself.
Married men like myself who have experienced "The Look" that wives all seem to have knows for a fact that sometimes silence is a formidable form of expression. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-01-17 03:24:15. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 07:09:24 AM · #178 |
I have entered this challenge.
My image documents freedom of expression.
It does not offend anyone.
It is not a cartoon created in Photoshop.
It is a conscientious objection to the rage demonstrated by the angry people participating in this forum.
Therefore, it will receive a lot of DNMC votes.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2015 08:33:11 AM · #179 |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 10:42:47 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Actually, I do understand what you are saying. I'm just disagreeing that silence is not a form of expression. |
Well I have given it my best shot. You are not obliged to respect my authoritah. But that day will come. As long as you remain silent, you are mine to bend to my will. [diabolical cackle, fade to black] |
LMAO :)
Oh, and BWAHAHAHA |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 11:14:49 AM · #181 |
Silence can be tacit acceptance because of fear.
Silence can be a fierce protest out of strength.
The first one people hope doesn't get noticed. The second one, people would be extremely disappointed if it didn't get noticed.
Sometimes it's hard to differentiate.
Is one a freedom of expression and one a choice not to express? Does that make the expression in the eye of the beholder? |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 02:05:01 PM · #182 |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 02:43:43 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Silence can be tacit acceptance because of fear.
Silence can be a fierce protest out of strength.
The first one people hope doesn't get noticed. The second one, people would be extremely disappointed if it didn't get noticed.
Sometimes it's hard to differentiate.
Is one a freedom of expression and one a choice not to express? Does that make the expression in the eye of the beholder? |
Wendy, you̢۪ve more than earned the right to a considered response rather than a flippant one. I can̢۪t recall your ever failing to at least try to understand a point of view with which you apparently instinctively disagreed. I̢۪m not pissing in your pocket (an Antipodean expression; not sure if it translates, so see here); the record, your own record, will bear me out.
This is necessarily a wordy, pedantic and esoteric response. Readers whose minds are already irrevocably made up and slammed shut would profit from ignoring this post. Or they would at least save some time.
A precondition for the exercise of freedom of expression is â€Â¦ expression. You have to actually say something to legally test the concept. And only literal expression will do in this test, because its absence, even if symbolically and pointedly absent, cannot be judged except by implication and context, and even then any applicable laws will address legal and constitutional concepts other than freedom of expression. And freedom of expression is indeed a legal and constitutional concept. It's not a matter of opinion, nor a fashionable whim based on the latest George Clooney award acceptance speech.
All the posters here arguing that silence is expression are mistaken, in legal terms as well as in literal terms. They conflate free choice with free expression, which isn’t the same thing at all. Yes a self-imposed silence may communicate. Yes it may insinuate. Yes it may imply or demonstrate protest, rejection, dismay, and abhorrence. And in doing that (remaining magnificently silent), it may satisfy you that you've made your point eloquently and forcefully. But what it doesn’t do is expressly state a position. A position must be articulated, must be uttered in some unequivocal form, to be considered expressed in the legal context of freedom of expression. And it’s the only legal context that ultimately applies here, because Freedom of Expression is necessarily a right, not an indulgence. It’s not like your ‘right’ to eat less sugar, or to get a tattoo.
Non-express acts of defiance or disagreement (silence, mooning a judge, etc, etc) cannot be judged on the basis of freedom of expression. They are acts of free will, of conscience, but not of free expression. They won̢۪t ever be regulated by laws intended to limit or even define freedom of expression, because they can̢۪t be. Non-expressed acts may break indecency laws, or laws of jurisprudence, or laws of compliance (IRS etc), but they simply cannot break or test laws related to freedom of expression.
So What?
Put aside all these abstract and hypothetical examples for a moment and reduce this discussion to its start point: the OP. In what way could silence convey a comprehensible stance in respect of the Charlie Hebdo atrocity? In what way could silence express either approval or disapproval of the principle for which the Charlie Hebdo staffers risked, and now suffered, their deaths?
Does it Matter?
Yes, the distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of choice is very important. One of the many reasons why is that freedom of choice means you are able to do as you please, whereas freedom of expression means you must tolerate things being said that do not please you at all.
In the first case you are merely indulging yourself (easy to do), but in the second you are indulging others (often very hard to do).
More cogent still is the fact that freedom of choice cannot realistically be regulated, whereas freedom of expression can be, and is.
Freedom of expression is dying. Your ability to speak freely is now less than it would have been 100 years ago, 200 years ago. Actually, 2000 years ago. If what you may say is regulated even before you say it, so is what you may think even before you think it ... and soon enough, you won't. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 04:47:04 PM · #184 |
Freedom of choice.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of expression.
The differences may be slight and semantic, but they are very distinct to me. Speech is a form of expression, but not the sole means of doing so. Mimes certainly would disagree with you. And some of the most powerful examples of protest have been wordless, such as the black Olympic athletes raising their fists on the podium, or the lone man staring down a tank at Tiannenmen Square.
That freedoms of all sorts are on the decline is undeniable. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 05:48:40 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Non-express acts of defiance or disagreement (silence, mooning a judge, etc, etc) cannot be judged on the basis of freedom of expression. They are acts of free will, of conscience, but not of free expression. They won̢۪t ever be regulated by laws intended to limit or even define freedom of expression, because they can̢۪t be. |
While it is true that This was grounds for a 30 day sentence, the penalty issued was in all probability for "Contempt of Court".
Still, there are limits and legal sanctions can be meted out for silent objections.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 06:34:01 PM · #186 |
| This has been a fascinating and informative conversation to follow. Not least because i am British and the British have for a long time struggled with such concepts as you can see here in this information campaign from my part of the world in the 1970's. Such a fine line. Such a struggle. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 07:35:37 PM · #187 |
| All this satire is so contagious. |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 07:49:42 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Silence can be tacit acceptance because of fear.
Silence can be a fierce protest out of strength.
The first one people hope doesn't get noticed. The second one, people would be extremely disappointed if it didn't get noticed.
Sometimes it's hard to differentiate.
Is one a freedom of expression and one a choice not to express? Does that make the expression in the eye of the beholder? |
Wendy, you̢۪ve more than earned the right to a considered response rather than a flippant one. I can̢۪t recall your ever failing to at least try to understand a point of view with which you apparently instinctively disagreed. I̢۪m not pissing in your pocket (an Antipodean expression; not sure if it translates, so see here); the record, your own record, will bear me out.
This is necessarily a wordy, pedantic and esoteric response. Readers whose minds are already irrevocably made up and slammed shut would profit from ignoring this post. Or they would at least save some time.
A precondition for the exercise of freedom of expression is â€Â¦ expression. You have to actually say something to legally test the concept. And only literal expression will do in this test, because its absence, even if symbolically and pointedly absent, cannot be judged except by implication and context, and even then any applicable laws will address legal and constitutional concepts other than freedom of expression. And freedom of expression is indeed a legal and constitutional concept. It's not a matter of opinion, nor a fashionable whim based on the latest George Clooney award acceptance speech.
All the posters here arguing that silence is expression are mistaken, in legal terms as well as in literal terms. They conflate free choice with free expression, which isn’t the same thing at all. Yes a self-imposed silence may communicate. Yes it may insinuate. Yes it may imply or demonstrate protest, rejection, dismay, and abhorrence. And in doing that (remaining magnificently silent), it may satisfy you that you've made your point eloquently and forcefully. But what it doesn’t do is expressly state a position. A position must be articulated, must be uttered in some unequivocal form, to be considered expressed in the legal context of freedom of expression. And it’s the only legal context that ultimately applies here, because Freedom of Expression is necessarily a right, not an indulgence. It’s not like your ‘right’ to eat less sugar, or to get a tattoo.
Non-express acts of defiance or disagreement (silence, mooning a judge, etc, etc) cannot be judged on the basis of freedom of expression. They are acts of free will, of conscience, but not of free expression. They won̢۪t ever be regulated by laws intended to limit or even define freedom of expression, because they can̢۪t be. Non-expressed acts may break indecency laws, or laws of jurisprudence, or laws of compliance (IRS etc), but they simply cannot break or test laws related to freedom of expression.
So What?
Put aside all these abstract and hypothetical examples for a moment and reduce this discussion to its start point: the OP. In what way could silence convey a comprehensible stance in respect of the Charlie Hebdo atrocity? In what way could silence express either approval or disapproval of the principle for which the Charlie Hebdo staffers risked, and now suffered, their deaths?
Does it Matter?
Yes, the distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of choice is very important. One of the many reasons why is that freedom of choice means you are able to do as you please, whereas freedom of expression means you must tolerate things being said that do not please you at all.
In the first case you are merely indulging yourself (easy to do), but in the second you are indulging others (often very hard to do).
More cogent still is the fact that freedom of choice cannot realistically be regulated, whereas freedom of expression can be, and is.
Freedom of expression is dying. Your ability to speak freely is now less than it would have been 100 years ago, 200 years ago. Actually, 2000 years ago. If what you may say is regulated even before you say it, so is what you may think even before you think it ... and soon enough, you won't. |
Short response now, because I'm fighting a migraine.
I actually agree. Although I truly believe that sometimes what you do speaks tremendously louder what you say, you can't legally say "Bear said FU by dropping his pants." someone else may say "bear was too hot in court and needed to cool down."
However, that being said, if it has to be speech, why are pieces of artwork (without words) often held up as examples of freedom of expression? (Usually those include urine and religion.)
And I think Tangy's examples of actions vs words were excellent. Tianenmen square was a spectacular form of protest and certainly long remembered more than most words when you watched it unfold.
Is this why it's freedom of expression instead of freedom of speech? |
|
|
|
01/17/2015 08:49:38 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by daisydavid:
All this satire is so contagious. |
It's like a rash. |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 05:40:10 AM · #190 |
Right to offend?
BBC Radio 2 discussion. |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 09:47:01 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
That freedoms of all sorts are on the decline is undeniable. |
Watch The Imitation Game and let me know if you still stand by that statement.
Message edited by author 2015-01-18 09:47:22. |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 11:04:20 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by tanguera:
That freedoms of all sorts are on the decline is undeniable. |
Watch The Imitation Game and let me know if you still stand by that statement. |
What aspect of this film are you referencing. And is it the historical incidents as portrayed in the film or as they are historically recorded? |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 11:29:15 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by tanguera:
That freedoms of all sorts are on the decline is undeniable. |
Watch The Imitation Game and let me know if you still stand by that statement. |
What aspect of this film are you referencing. And is it the historical incidents as portrayed in the film or as they are historically recorded? |
I think the actual part about the court conviction and subsequent forced chemical castration, the removal of his security clearance and loss of employment with the government should be enough. Do you think that would happen today, or have homosexuals gained freedoms they didn't previously have? |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 11:45:35 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Do you think that would happen today, or have homosexuals gained freedoms they didn't previously have? |
It's hardly a linear progression. Certainly great inroads have been made in some areas while an erosion has occurred in many others. At least part of the issue is that we're trying to legislate common sense, rather than cultivate it in ourselves. |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 05:24:37 PM · #195 |
The great thing about the discussion around Charlie Hebdo, at least at the outset, was that so much of it was expressed in pictures.
Message edited by author 2015-01-18 17:24:51. |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 05:28:24 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Do you think that would happen today, or have homosexuals gained freedoms they didn't previously have? |
It's hardly a linear progression. Certainly great inroads have been made in some areas while an erosion has occurred in many others. At least part of the issue is that we're trying to legislate common sense, rather than cultivate it in ourselves. |
Good point. It's not a criminal offence to be homosexual any more, nor to 'practice homosexuality'. Whether or not general homophobia has changed, I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2015 05:46:47 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Do you think that would happen today, or have homosexuals gained freedoms they didn't previously have? |
It's hardly a linear progression. Certainly great inroads have been made in some areas while an erosion has occurred in many others. At least part of the issue is that we're trying to legislate common sense, rather than cultivate it in ourselves. |
Good point. It's not a criminal offence to be homosexual any more, nor to 'practice homosexuality'. Whether or not general homophobia has changed, I'm not so sure. |
I just heard an interview which pointed out that much of the prohibition of homosexuality in Muslim countries dates from the British colonial period, and that there had been no explicit prohibition prior to that -- not good enough for those Victorian hyper-moralists ... |
|
|
|
01/23/2015 08:45:04 AM · #198 |
|
|
|
01/23/2015 11:53:16 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
At least part of the issue is that we're trying to legislate common sense, rather than cultivate it in ourselves. |
+ 1 googolplex.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2015 12:03:30 PM · #200 |
"It's getting a lot easier to offend people because they actively seek out offence [sic]". |
|
