Ship of Fools: Purgatory: The BBC

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Ship's Locker » Limbo » Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer! (Page 12)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

My response to Ken was "OK, how do you enforce the concept of 'some things that shouldn't be said'? If you don't then the 'shouldn't' has no meaning." to his statement that there are some things that shouldn't be said.
I think this is the same question you are asking me and my answer to that is my post above.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

Posted

So "you shouldn't commit adultery" has no meaning, since it isn't enforced?

--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]

Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I thought that was what Glimmer's proposed "acceptable authority for arbitration" was for. You know -- sort of like the "Poll the Audience" option on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?".

Dear Pres
Yes that's pretty much the gist of what I meant. Each country would have the "Authority" that suits them. Choosing that "Authority" would be done by means of free, fair, democratic elections with universal franchise. Candidates for serving in that "Authority" offer the electorate the basis (moral framework, social framework, practical plans) upon which they would operate. That way you all get the government you deserve.
However, coming back to my original point so very, very long ago, it's a question of trusting your government to be truthful and honour their commitments. My whole idea was that the ideal would be to have a government that could be trusted to make the right arbitration decisions in the event of clashing claims of 'rights'.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Yes that's pretty much the gist of what I meant. Each country would have the "Authority" that suits them. Choosing that "Authority" would be done by means of free, fair, democratic elections with universal franchise. Candidates for serving in that "Authority" offer the electorate the basis (moral framework, social framework, practical plans) upon which they would operate. That way you all get the government you deserve.

You know, Glimmer---in principal I'm with you. Several months ago, I took your position when there was a Hell thread on men catcalling women. I find that deeply morally offensive, and still consider it a form of assault.

But I've come to the conclusion that Presley, Erin, and all the other free-speech absolutists are right.

And the reason is that if we subject ourselves to your system of arbitration, I will find myself living in a country where it will be illegal for me to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians, and to publicly support reproductive choice---because these ideas are currently not "popular" in the United States. If you read the "discussion" boards at places like Free Republic, you will see that those people would like to make it illegal to criticize the President or the war in Iraq. They see such speech as treasonous.

I don't want those people voting on what I can and cannot say in my country.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Laura
General nuisance
# 10

Posted

Glimmer is offending me. Where are the police?

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
So "you shouldn't commit adultery" has no meaning, since it isn't enforced?

There is, and should be, a difference between legally enforced concepts and matters of purely personal significance.

[ 11. January 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
So "you shouldn't commit adultery" has no meaning, since it isn't enforced?
There is, and should be, a difference between legally enforced concepts and matters of purely personal significance.

I think that was pretty much my point.

--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]

Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

lapsed heathen

Hurler on the ditch
# 4403

Posted

12 pages !!! and not as good as sex secrets of lost Atlantis.

This seems to have become about complete censorship or complete free speech. In fact the objection to JStO is that the BBC which is funded by public money aired this show (OK technically was going to air) Free expression was not being objected to. If the producers felt so strongly let them pay for the show and see how far it runs.

The interesting question is should the BBC operate under some sense of deference to sections of the public. I would say yes. I don't see the same restriction applying to independent commercial TV, for the obvious reason that people get to vote with their feet. With the BBC that choice is not their.

On Thursday their is to be a discussion about the show and reactions to it. Perhaps the discussion should have been first then let the public decide whether to show it or not. After all 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'

--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"

Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
My response to Ken was "OK, how do you enforce the concept of 'some things that shouldn't be said'? If you don't then the 'shouldn't' has no meaning." to his statement that there are some things that shouldn't be said.
I think this is the same question you are asking me and my answer to that is my post above.

I'm still not making myself clear. What I am asking is what are the penalties for expressing ideas that the authority has deemed to be unexpressable. Do I go to jail? Pay a fine? Forfeit all access to pen, paper and public areas where I might voice some objectionable idea? What happens to me when I say the thing (whatever it is) that the authority shouldn't be said? I want to know what you consider a suitable punishment for violating these standards.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

I can't believe it! I thought my previous post was clear enough - this is what we have ALREADY. The "Authority" is the Government, who pass laws circumscribing what is permitted and what is not permitted. How can anyone imagine I'm talking about anything else? I'm talking about the governments we have NOW and the way they necessarily restrict freedom of speech/expression, but get it wrong.
I have never put the slightest support for anything but the minimum of restrictions on what people may say - and that on the grounds of legitimate offence. The question being how do you define 'legitimate'.
Now, with those who advocate no restrictions at all, there can be no debate about it. It is futile to try to invent a position of complete censorship for me to occupy so that I can be criticised. That's not where I am in the slightest; attempts to personalise the discussion will get nowhere with me.
Those who know me IRL (none on the ship, I should imagine) are well aware of the outspoken and vigorous stance I have publically taken in support of gay, women and disabled rights.
I repeat, for the last time hopefully, I beleive that there cannot be a harmonious state of complete freedom of expression. And why is no-one admitting to, and defending their own Government's blatantly autocratic and severe censorship? Is it because to admit it exists leads to the obvious 'what are you doing about it, or is it one law for me and another for you?'
I had hoped for constructive contributions to a difficult issue in democratic life but there haven't been that many.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

Crossposted.
Erin, I don't have that answer.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

That's the part that concerns me, Glimmer -- you're ready to give up the right to freedom of expression, but you're very vague about its execution and consequences. If I'm surrendering my rights then by God it's going to be spelled out exactly how it's going to happen.

That said... I am not sure to whom this bit:

quote:
And why is no-one admitting to, and defending their own Government's blatantly autocratic and severe censorship? Is it because to admit it exists leads to the obvious 'what are you doing about it, or is it one law for me and another for you?'

was directed. If it was directed at the Americans, you can bet your ass that at least I am very, very vocal about the erosion of rights that have come about in recent years. And every time I vote I vote for the candidate who will drag the government back into some semblance of respect for the Constitution and its amendments.

I guess what I, at least, am having the hardest time with is that it seems patently obvious that if you restrict expression of one idea then you are most certianly on your way to restriction of expression of any idea. Your response to this always comes back to some variation of "people might be hurt by what you say, so don't say it". To which I say bullshit, because sometimes people damn well NEED to be hurt terribly by words.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Marvin the Martian - I do believe that saying the words posted by Erin in her KKK reference would be deemed illegal. Depending on where and to whom you said it, it may give rise to a Breach of the Peace.

So could preaching the Gospel.

My understanding is that unless you're actively and expicitly telling someone to commit the crime, your speech isn't illegal.

I'm no legal expert though, so I could be wrong...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

I guess what I, at least, am having the hardest time with is that it seems patently obvious that if you restrict expression of one idea then you are most certianly on your way to restriction of expression of any idea.

Exactly. No argument there. My original point about who can you trust? You feel the best way to solve the problem is by having no restrictions; I opt to solve the problem by imagining there is a way to have government that can be trusted somehow. My response to censor-abuse is just the same as yours -

quote:
And every time I vote I vote for the candidate who will drag the government back into some semblance of respect for the Constitution and its amendments.

Thank you; I hope you can understand better where I am. I believe there can be such a thing as 99.9% free speech and that 1% concerns people and the pain they can feel by unnecessary use of the free speech ticket. You and others believe that no-one can be trusted to be a fair judge so 100% free speech is the better option. I'm not interested in protecting governments, politicians, political sacred cows, corporations, organisations. It's people and their faith who need the secular help in a secular world.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

My understanding is that unless you're actively and expicitly telling someone to commit the crime, your speech isn't illegal.

I'm no legal expert though, so I could be wrong...

Let's meet up sometime. We'll go to a street corner in Slough and I'll stand up and shout "Jesus Christ the Son of God came to earth for your salvation. Accept Him into your heart and you will receive eternal life".
Then we'll go to a street corner in Brixton and you will stand up and shout "all niggers should be strung up from the nearest tree".
What fun! [Devil]

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I think that was pretty much my point.

A point that would have been clearer to me if, you know, I had been less stupid. Sorry.

lapsed heathen, you do make a fair point. However, I'd argue that the situation of the BBC isn't exactly the same sort of situation as your government - there doesn't need to be a majority appreciation for everything they show. If such a requirement was necessary, how many hours a day could the BBC realistically broadcast? Because I can't imagine there being that many shows so universally enjoyed that everyone would want. I think that as long as the BBC thinks it has a sufficient audience for something - however it determines that - let freedom of expression reign.

[ 12. January 2005, 01:15: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me feel sad as I read these posts is the fact that so many of you feel no hurt or shame that God and our Lord Jesus Christ is being mocked and and made an object of ridicule.

I refer you to Elijah 2:23-24: From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

...and to Numbers 16:29-33 29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, [a] then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt."

31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah's men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community.

The Lord is well able to take care of Himself and doesn't me or you or anyone else to protect him from comic operas or talk shows. Wanting not to see God blasphemed is understandable and commendable, but it is not actionable in the sense of you telling someone other adult they may not blaspheme.

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Would you like the people that you love and hold dear to be treated that way?

The people I love and hold dear aren't the Creator of the Universe. You're making your relationship with other people the same weight as your relationship with God, and that's not accurate. Other people are not God.

As much as I would hate to see someone defaming me or my wife, I would support his right to do so via free speech, as as long as I had legal recourse if necessary against libel or slander.

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
There are highter things than free speach and one of them is to love God and to respect His Name,

That is a facet of a Christian life, it has no bearing on unbelievers, as Erin(?) pointed out. I love God by allowing people the freedom to love God--or not--as they see fit. I respect His name by respecting the freedom of people to disrespect His name.

To answer Glimmer, there cannot be a "right not to be offended." That's ludicrous. If red-capped garden gnomes offend me, do I have the right to force a homeowner to remove them from his yard? If eating meat offends me, do I have the right to force the State to close all butcher shops? If the cross of Christ offends me, do I have the right to force the State to remove them from sight?

[code]

[ 12. January 2005, 04:35: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction

My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com

Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Amazing Grace*

Shipmate
# 4754

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki: It is not OK to use public funds to celebrate religious festivals, i.e. Christmas,
What do you think these BBC religious programes for Christmas were made with?

(lots of examples snipped for brevity - c.)

Should my atheist and non-Christian friends object to tiny fractions of their licence fee being used?

Heh. As a modest proposal, I think they should ALL be refunded the exact proportional amount of their own personal licence fee that was used to produce these, as should Fr. G et. al. be refunded the exact amount of their own license fee that got used to produce the springer program.

No rounding up, though.

Charlotte "do you still have half pence coins in the UK?"

--------------------
.sig on vacation

Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
If red-capped garden gnomes offend me, do I have the right to force a homeowner to remove them from his yard?

This is between you, your conscience and the Lord.

And verily, it came to pass that in the days of tribulation, KenWritez came upon red-capped garden gnomes and was sorely offended. Ken lifted his voice unto heaven and beseeched the assembled hosts saying, "What curse is this unto my sight, Oh Lord, that I must suffer these abominations? And he heard a sound as if thunder in the distance, "Go forth, Ken. Smite ye, the accursed garden-gnomes and know that I am with you."

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
I'm not interested in protecting governments, politicians, political sacred cows, corporations, organisations. It's people and their faith who need the secular help in a secular world.

So what happens when your hypothetical trustworthy government decides that governments, politicians, political sacred cows, corporations, and organizations should be protected against offensive speech? Don't laugh - we've got about half of that here in the US despite our fanatical obsession with freedom of expression.

Any time you make an exception to freedom of expression, you create a precedent for further restrictions. When one idea is suppressed, all ideas become suppressable.

I'm not sure what you meant about people needing secular help in a secular world, but I think I'm offended.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

Posted

This excited me so much that I had to give it a post of its own.

quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
But I've come to the conclusion that Presley, Erin, and all the other free-speech absolutists are right.

Yaaaay!!! Not because you agree with us, but because someone actually reads the discussions, thinks about what is said, and applies it to their own beliefs. Hot damn!

Paige, you have restored my faith in the value of public debate. [Smile]

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

Like all absolutes, absolute freedom of speech just doesn't work. We have to consider the "volume" of a voice and take care that one voice doesn't drown out all the others.

For example, the statement "Mr XYZ cheats on his wife by bonking a sheep." acquires different "volumes" according to whether:

I say so sitting alone in my car.
I say so to my wife.
I say so to a group of people who do not know him and do not care about him.
I say so to his face.
I say so to his face in front of a group of people.
I say so to a group of people knowing and caring about him, but without him around.
I say so in the local newspaper.
I say so on national TV, radio and newspaper.
I say so in the president's address to the nation.
I say so in textbooks for students of all ages, who are regularly quizzed by teachers on the matter.
I say so through all of the above, using a nationwide, sustained agitprop effort.

Also, of course, the intrinsic "volume" of the above statement is pretty loud compared to for example "Mr XYZ occasionally picks his nose." or the entirely quiet "Mr XYZ's name is XYZ."

The fear of being "shouted down" should not be played out against the fear of "being denied a voice". It's actually the same fear: screaming at someone at the top of your lungs denies them their voice just as much as stitching their mouth shut.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

Posted

You are free to make such a statement about Mr. XYZ. If it is a true statement, there is nothing further to discuss. If it is an untrue statement, Mr. XYZ may file a civil suit against you for defamation. The "volume" of your speech may control the amount of damage done to Mr. XYZ and the size of the award. However, in no case is your offensive speech a criminal offense, to be prohibited by the state. You are absolutely free to speak offensively.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

Posted

Admit it, IngoB: You set up that super-fragile logical contruct specifically so that someone could knock it down. You're not-so-covertly working for the unfettered freedom of speach side, aren't you?

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yaaaay!!! Not because you agree with us, but because someone actually reads the discussions, thinks about what is said, and applies it to their own beliefs. Hot damn!

Paige, you have restored my faith in the value of public debate.

Glad to be of service. [Big Grin]

Actually, I find the Ship to be the best place on the Web, bar none, for forcing me to really think about what I believe and why---in matters of faith, politics, and just about anything else I can think of. So for that, I owe you, and quite a few others, a debt of thanks.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Admit it, IngoB: You set up that super-fragile logical contruct specifically so that someone could knock it down.

Superfragilisticlogicalconstucticalodosous?

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
On Thursday their is to be a discussion about the show and reactions to it. Perhaps the discussion should have been first then let the public decide whether to show it or not. After all 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'

The problem with having the discussion first is that very few people would be able to contribute to the discussion, as the show hadn't been shown few people would have seen it. Rather like the start of this thread in fact. At least now the discussion can be had with those who've seen the show.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

Posted

I think you're being a bit snobbish about "art", Adeo.

As comedy, which is what JStO primarily is, it works very well. Ok, David Soul hammed up (a watching companion said, "It's a killer script, and he manages to kill it"), but you cannot actually fault this as a performance.

Does it say profound things? I think it does - about the infantilised Christ and the comedy Devil the West has; about chatshow hosts' hubris; about the fickle nature of public acclaim (at the real end (not the song and dance finale), Jerry sadly goes off stage to the chorus' refrain of "I'm been seing someone else...", suggesting that, now having solved the universe's problems, Springer will himself be discarded by the crowd).

Throw in Stuart "No, Richard, what you're doing is making a bad joke about a childhood mishearing of a hymn" Lee's propensity to make jokes about religion (Christianity, in his case, being the one he knows most about), then it's a heady mix of satire on both media and religion. Probably not as clever as it thinks it is, but nonetheless thought-provoking.

No, it wasn't Hamlet, but then it wasn't meant to be. And we are in a poor state indeed if we insist that people present arguments in some fashion that appeals to our (subjective, limited, often perverse) aesthetic sensibilities. As Chesterton said, it doesn't matter if a man is arguing first principles wearing his pyjamas in a crumpled bed - let him argue first principles.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
I believe there can be such a thing as 99.9% free speech and that 1% concerns people and the pain they can feel by unnecessary use of the free speech ticket. You and others believe that no-one can be trusted to be a fair judge so 100% free speech is the better option.

This makes it sound as if we agree with you about protecting others from the 1%, but decide to stomach it because there's no-one we can trust.

That's not true. I don't agree with you that people should be protected from the 1%. Even if there were someone I trusted completely to make the right decision every time, I'd still go with 100% free speech.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
My response to Ken was "OK, how do you enforce the concept of 'some things that shouldn't be said'? If you don't then the 'shouldn't' has no meaning." to his statement that there are some things that shouldn't be said.
I think this is the same question you are asking me and my answer to that is my post above.

But it is a nonsense answer.

I shouldn't try to make love to your wife. It would be morally wrong. But if I do try, then the government shouldn't send police to stop me.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
The interesting question is should the BBC operate under some sense of deference to sections of the public. I would say yes. I don't see the same restriction applying to independent commercial TV, for the obvious reason that people get to vote with their feet. With the BBC that choice is not their.

Arse-elbow translocation error.

The BBC should be showing the unpopular stuff. Popular stuff gets shown on commercial TV anyway.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

Isaac David

Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671

Posted

The Old Testament prophets suffered for their opposition to the idolatry of Israel. Many of the first Christians were martyred for opposing idolatry everywhere. They had no qualms about proclaiming Christ the only true God and the gods of the pagans false. I wonder, what is so wrong with opposing the desire of secular society to trample on all that is holy, even if only by declaring 'enough is enough'? Even if we fail and Christianity is defamed yet more, I would rather stand with the martyrs. And I salute Anthony Pitts, a producer who has quit the BBC in protest.

--------------------
Isaac the Idiot

Forget philosophy. Read Borges.

Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

Posted

I could understand the accusation of blasphemy if the second half of the show was broadcast on its own. But the whole point is that the second half can only be understood in the context of the first half, as a dreadful parody / bad dream, probably in this case brought on by JS having been shot.

Dyfrig's point about it being a comedy, but one which provokes thought about several issues, is the best argument in its favour, IMHO - comedy is often the best way to introduce difficult issues, like holding up a mirror to ourselves and our world, as well as to Jerry Springer himself.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I wonder, what is so wrong with opposing the desire of secular society to trample on all that is holy, even if only by declaring 'enough is enough'?

Who decides what is part of "all that is holy"? An British priest? A Sydney primate? An American fundamentalist?

And Glimmer, Marvin is right. We aren't disagreeing because we don't trust anyone enough to arbitrate that 1%, we disagree because we don't believe that anyone should be protected from that 1%.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And Glimmer, Marvin is right. We aren't disagreeing because we don't trust anyone enough to arbitrate that 1%, we disagree because we don't believe that anyone should be protected from that 1%.

Now this is where I part company with you. I definitely fall in the former camp---I don't trust the rightwingnuts in this country to arbitrate the 1%.

So, in order to keep from being a hypocrite, I have to go with absolute free speech---even if they gave ME the power to do the arbitrating.

But I don't have to be happy about it. I still think certain forms of speech are equivalent to assault---it's just that, when compared to the dangers of silencing, they are the lesser of two evils.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

lapsed heathen

Hurler on the ditch
# 4403

Posted

Ken;

quote:
The BBC should be showing the unpopular stuff. Popular stuff gets shown on commercial TV anyway.

I'm Irish, and RTE our national broadcaster is in a similar position to the BBC and has had pressure exerted to influence it's programing. Political and other. RTE is in fact worse off than Auntie because it depends on advertising revenue as well as having the licence fee appropriated by the Gov.
It does however have the right to screen anything without reference to the Censor.

This means that a public forum exists that is free from censorship. They can show anything without getting approval first. I don't really think that what offends should be banned and blasphemy is hardly enforceable in law. The wider issue of whether whats shown should reflect some sort of public good manners or lead and test perceptions and prejudices is what is being discussed.

I remain unconvinced that censorship is either effective or wise. I remain equally unconvinced that insulting or blatantly sensational programing is of any benefit to anyone.

I suppose that saddened by JStO is the worst I felt, apart from angered that this is somehow acceptable when the exact same level of offence to other faiths would not be. I can take the insult of 'Mary, Raped by an angel' but not as well as if 'Muhammad child molester' was also an option for broadcast. It's the supposition that Christian beliefs are fair game that offends most.

--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"

Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
I suppose that saddened by JStO is the worst I felt, apart from angered that this is somehow acceptable when the exact same level of offence to other faiths would not be. I can take the insult of 'Mary, Raped by an angel' but not as well as if 'Muhammad child molester' was also an option for broadcast. It's the supposition that Christian beliefs are fair game that offends most.

I agree with you here, but you're talking about a second issue. Every religion ought to be fair game for humorists and commentators, Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. I look at the fatwas by Muslim clergy against those who have dared to criticize elements or implementations of Islam, or merely even examine Islamic religious tenets or figures via methodologies not approved of by Islamic clergy.

I think people promoting the censoring of JStO are missing the entire point of satire. Satire is: "Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."

It sounds like JStO is attacking and exposing not God, but rather "folly, vice or stupidity" of the human end of our relationship with God.

I haven't been able to see JStO yet, although I plan to watch it when it becomes available, if for no other reason than I want to see what I'm defending the right to air. I expect I'll dislike it, but that's the price I pay for my right of free speech, and it's a price I'll pay without hesitation every day.

Fr G., I find it ironic and hypocritical you who complain so loudly about Pres. Bush's "totalitarian" agenda are so quick to deny free speech to someone who offends you.

--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction

My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com

Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

That's not true. I don't agree with you that people should be protected from the 1%. Even if there were someone I trusted completely to make the right decision every time, I'd still go with 100% free speech.

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And Glimmer, Marvin is right. We aren't disagreeing because we don't trust anyone enough to arbitrate that 1%, we disagree because we don't believe that anyone should be protected from that 1%.

First, due to mis-typing, my intended 0.1% multiplied itself by a factor of ten. But that doesn't change anything of course.
However, I'd like to point out that despite the earnest declarations of devotion to 100% free speech and 0% protection for anyone, none of us has that. In the US under the guise of Patriotism and War on Terror there is an intolerable level of censorship - and recently a majority of the country voted for more of it! The level and power of censorship of unaccountable corporation executives through commercial and advertising means is extraordinary. In the UK I see the equally dreadful situation where (the JS-tO transient protests notwithstanding) anybody who says boo-hoo can claim all sorts of persecution through 'racism', 'sexism' and now 'religionism'. And it looks like this year we in the UK will vote for more of it as well. Where has common sense gone? In the noble championing of both extremes we have lost the reality of what is happening every day. The JS-tO incident is a tiny example and, as I say, transient; why does this distract so many people?
Like it or not, free speech does not exist. To say that no-one should have protection from the abuse of free speech is fine but all around I see an abundance of censorship - protecting in the main the power barons, the hypocritical, the morally bankrupt. Advance the cause of 100% free speech, then, and get rid of them. If you can, then I'd be right there alongside you carrying a torch.
But I don't think that's possible, so I support the view that these 'powers' should be limited and accountable.

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Like it or not, free speech does not exist.

But instead of just accepting this we need to fight the restrictions. Saying "well, it's going to happen, how can we make it work" is like saying "well, murder is going to happen, how can we make it work". There are some things are just wrong no matter what, and no compromise should be entertained.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Glimmer

Ship's Lantern
# 4540

Posted

OK,let's roll with that, in case you can persuade me to agree with your position. How do we fight the restrictions? The way I see it, the smart way to impose censorship is to first disenfranchise potential opposition (ie speaking out against is often tainted with being unpatriotic).

--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork

Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

Posted

quote:
Glimmer wrote: In the US under the guise of Patriotism and War on Terror there is an intolerable level of censorship - and recently a majority of the country voted for more of it! The level and power of censorship of unaccountable corporation executives through commercial and advertising means is extraordinary.

Four points:

1) Glimmer, what precisely is being censored "under the guise of Patriotism and the War on Terror"? That's a trick question, of course, because if it's being censored, you wouldn't know about it.

2) As to so-called "censorship of unaccountable corporation executives," perhaps the problem is definitional. As was hammered out endlessly on the thread about some television stations' refusal to run the UCC's spot, the kind of "censorship" banned by the First Amendment is government restriction of free speech.

3) Back to Glimmer's "acceptable authority for arbitration." The one right not amenable to the democratic process is freedom of speech because of the substantial risk of the tyrannny of the majority. A democratically elected "acceptable authority for arbitration" reflects, by definition, the popular views of the majority of the electorate. Fifty years ago, the majority of the electorate thought Martin Luther King was a dangerous agitator who should be silenced. Thank goodness Glimmer's "acceptable authority for arbitration" wasn't allowed to shut him up.

4) For about the thirteenth time in this discussion, may I quote Mr. Justice Brandeis' 1927 concurrence in Whitney v. California:

quote:
Those who won our independence . . . believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government....

Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

Posted

The thing that really depresses me isn't that some people are so willing to do away with freedom of speech.

It's that they're willing to do so over a lame opera that hardly anyone would have watched had they not protested so much...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
You are free to make such a statement about Mr. XYZ. If it is a true statement, there is nothing further to discuss. If it is an untrue statement, Mr. XYZ may file a civil suit against you for defamation. The "volume" of your speech may control the amount of damage done to Mr. XYZ and the size of the award. However, in no case is your offensive speech a criminal offense, to be prohibited by the state. You are absolutely free to speak offensively.

There is quite a bit to discuss about the "volume" even if the statement were true. But let's keep it simple and assume it's false. Then you tell me Mr. XYZ should seek the protection of civil law (established by the Legislative, be it democratic or judicial-oligarchic in case of "common law" in certain countries) by appealing to a court (Judiciary) and then let the police (Executive) enforce the ruling against me. It appears then that all branches of modern government conspire to moderate the "volume" of my free speech. It's simply misleading to say that the state is allowing "absolute freedom" here just because its counter-measures do not go by the label "stopping criminal offenses".

There's only one society that can tolerate "absolute freedom" - and that is the "society" of only one.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The person seeking redress in the civil court system has to prove that the defendant knew it was false and also that it wasn't parody, satire or otherwise intended for humorous effect. Even then there is no guarantee that it falls afoul of our libel/slander laws -- hell, just look at campaign commercials.

But knowingly uttering false statements isn't part of freedom of expression and only a total dumbass would think it is. Freedom of expression is relative to beliefs, thoughts and ideas. I'm starting to tire of these strawmen that keep sprouting up everywhere.

[ 13. January 2005, 02:37: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe Australia has laws similar to the UK, but I readily admit I could be wrong about that.

The precise nature of the government-imposed restrictions is certainly of practical interest. However, I just wished to point out that there are some, that freedom of speech (naturally) does not rule absolute. The discussion which rules are best is much more difficult. (And in my opinion ultimately misleading...)

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But knowingly uttering false statements isn't part of freedom of expression and only a total dumbass would think it is.

Here's a pretty good definition of "blasphemy" for you: to knowingly utter false statements about God. Now what? Who gets to define "false"?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004 | IP: Logged

Ley Druid

Ship's chemist
# 3246

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's only one society that can tolerate "absolute freedom" - and that is the "society" of only one.

This unlikely to be well received on a bulletin board where many feel absolutely free to say whatever they want. A+ for effort.

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Like it or not, free speech does not exist.
But instead of just accepting this we need to fight the restrictions. Saying "well, it's going to happen, how can we make it work" is like saying "well, murder is going to happen, how can we make it work". There are some things are just wrong no matter what, and no compromise should be entertained.

My first post on the ship of fools was censored. "Gratuitous racial slur" was the offense I believe.
I am also quite proud of having been suspended and and unable to express myself freely on these boards.
Was I wronged?
Should one person or a goup deny another absolute freedom of expression?

Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Should one person or a goup deny another absolute freedom of expression?

Certainly not. And the particular beauty of the internet is you can start up your own bulletin board and say whatever you please.

Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

Ley Druid

Ship's chemist
# 3246

Posted

Analogous to the way one could move to another country to say what one wants?
But please tell, was I wronged?

[ 13. January 2005, 03:10: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]

Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

Posted