|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Ley Druid, you are purely and simply wrong.
About what? Quote my mistake please.
With all due respect to Justice Harlan
quote:
Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise of the freedom of speech protected from arbitrary governmental interference by the Constitution and can be justified, if at all, only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive message it conveys.
Broadcasting is an acceptable manner of expression only for substantive messages that are not obscene. The Congress has passed legislation that abridges the expression of obscene messages. It has not prohibited obscene messages.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Dave
So, where there's channel scarcity there has to be a higher bar to decency? I could see sense in that IF other options (cable etc) didn't provide reasily accessible diversity. I still can't see why the standards cannot be applied uniformly across the baord since media accessibility and diversity I wouldn't have thought was a problem.
Indeed, the "scarcity of a public good" argument dates from the 1920's and 30's, when all transmissions (radio, at that time) were broadcast over the limited spectrum. Broadcast TV was incorporated under the same model when it came along.
Absent such scarcity (as with the advent of cable) this rationale for restrictions falls away, which is why all the edgy, daring shows in the US these days seem to show up on cable channels like HBO. I've read that the broadcast licence-holders have begun to argue that their restrictions now put them at an unfair disadvantage vis a vis the cable channels, and should thus be removed.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It was some time ago but I did see a report on UK TV that such restrictions (on "I love you") did at one time apply here and there if not now. I must admit I did then start to notice how many times in American romantic dramas, the actors were apt to say rather coyly:- "I really like you."
That's funny - I can't think of any early TV shows or movies in which a character would have substituted that phrase, except for the purpose of letting the other person down gently (e.g. "I really like you ... [and you have a great personality, and I'm sure you'll meet the right person one day, but I don't love you.]")
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
What kind of speech exactly do you favor restricting, IngoB? If it really is such a (nearly) universally recognized "inherent evil" I'd think it should be easy to explain. No need to go on and on about murder (in favor of which no one here is arguing.)
Your last sentence is actually precisely what I'm advocating: restrictions are to be set up for those things "in favor of which no one is arguing". Murder is clearly one of these. OK, here's a list to start (not end) discussion. Restrictions should be made on speech that attacks:
- procreation, in particular long-term social and/or personal relationships aimed at the conception and/or rearing of children;
- a person's body: health and life;
- a person's possession of (some) material objects;
- a person's social standing, in particular his reputation;
- respect for the elderly and dead, in particular care for parents and handling of bodies;
- what a person holds sacred, in particular forms of worship.
One way of arriving at this kind of "fundamentals" is to ask which questions an anthrophologist does not ask when ecountering a new human culture. For example, he will not ask "Do they care for dead bodies?" He will ask "In what way are they taking care of dead bodies?" And this is not meant on the practical level of "biological waste disposal". One may hear in a documentary on Neanderthals: "That they put paint on the dead and included burial objects like flowers shows that they were quite human." We can comprehend all sorts of variations on the theme of "respecting the dead", but we cannot comprehend not doing it. If you chuck your beloved granny into the (bio-)garbage bin when she's dead and immediately forget about her, you are considered mad - although it's entirely "rational" to do so.
Of course, the point of discussion here is the last point on my little list. Here I think it is important to not overemphasize the issue of diversity. Clearly, it's easier to make rules when the community is entirely homogeneous in its ideas about what is sacred. However, just because it is heterogeneous does not mean all is lost. The job then is to try to accomodate all points of view. That it is impossible to do so perfectly is no excuse for not doing it at all.
With regards to "atheists" I would say that they project their (inevitable) urge for the sacred mostly on two things: nature and/or humanity. The quasi-religious nature of many discussions about environmental issues has often been used in critiques against some proposed measure. It is then unfortunate that many "atheists" are afraid to simply answer: "That's correct, not only do I have rational arguments for my position, I also hold nature as sacred - so you are being both irrational and blasphemous!"
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
IngoB, where do you get the extremely silly idea that there is a universal standard for behavior, especially without reference to religion? Many cultures have accepted and even celebrated the killing of collective or individual enemies.
Indeed, Scot, to act contrary to "inherent good" always requires the definition of the victims as either non-human or deserving (e.g., as enemies). That evil streak is as old as humanity, too: form a group, hurt the other groups; all good for the insiders, all evil to the outsiders. If you wish to find "universals" of good, you have to analyze what happens within a group. No group tolerates wanton internal killings, although it may applaud them externally. Now, you try the same game in our little discussion: define one group (the champions of free speech, true democracy, etc.) and the others as enemies (the inquisitors, theocrats, censors, etc.). Then you are free to attack at will. However, if you trample all over my religious sensibilites, as silly as you may find them, you are hurting a member of your own group (if we were living in the same nation, that's the point of a modern state: form a common super-group). So clearly you would have to answer the question if that was really necessary. Since you want to avoid that question, you work terribly hard to show that I've left "your group", have become an enemy, and hence do not deserve any consideration. Which is bunk. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You need to re-read your American civil rights history, then.
I'm not arguing history. Of course, people will falsely accuse other people. That's precisely why we need impartial judges, a multi-partial press, etc. As to the points you mention: if King did advocate the killing of whites, then his speech should have been restricted. "Communist agitator" is a different kettle of fish though. No culture ever has forbidden all personal possessions. However, the level of personal possessions accepted by society is clearly not universal. Some societies owned their possessions to a very large extent in a "communal" fashion. The discussion about what level of possessions are "good" is hence clearly not restricted by any inherent good.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Nope. What you're saying is you want freedom of speech restricted to the degree it will not offend anyone's religious sensibilities. "You're not allowed to make fun of God" is what you seem to want. That's ludicrous and inane.
Well, indeed, I expect you to not make fun of my God as far as that can reasonably be asked of you. I grant the same respect to others, and of course to whatever you happen to consider sacred. Clearly, it's impossible to perfectly accomodate everybody. Clearly, there are other goods to consider: blasphemy doesn't rule supreme either.
In the case at hand then the consideration must be: Was this opera worth the hurt it has caused to a religious community? Is the balance of good and bad at least neutral, if not positive? For example, was the intellectual and artistic content valuable enough? And - was there no other (less hurtful) way of making the same points? However, to just say "I don't give a shit about any Christian ideas of the sacred because freedom of speech guarantees that I can abuse that lot at will." - that is wrong in principle, even inherently evil.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
The freedom to drive my car in a certain manner or to a certain location has nothing to do with the freedom of speech in expressing ideas and opinions.
Driving a car is an action, speaking is an action. Society does not allow absolute freedom in either, because how one person acts affects many in both these cases - and society has to maintain the common good. I see no way of escaping that conclusion, unless you claim that your speech has no effect whatsoever on anyone. In which case it would seem energy-conserving to simply shut up. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Ah, I see now. You want the State as your Mommy. Protect you from those nasty bad ol' opinions that upset your tummy, and coincidentally protect everyone else from what *you* don't like.
The insistence with which you want to declare me as supreme dictator of all is of course laudable and if everybody joins your call, I will gladly lord over the world. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Until that time comes, I will stick to the modest goal of restricting speech with regards to evil that is unacceptable to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
When your sense of offense changes, when the scope of what you consider offensive increases (as is human nature), so will the actionable acts of speech you'll want to control, until finally, logically extending this situation, anyone disagreeing with you is liable for punishment and silencing.
I keep advocating a return to fundamentals everybody agrees on, you keep claiming I want to push exclusively my agenda. There's a point where this turns from misunderstandings and disagreements on a difficult topic into an open accusation that I'm lying, that I have hidden sinister plans. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Please either scale down your rhetorics a bit or make a proper personal attack. I can deal with either, but your raving on about my Stalinesque personality under the guise of factual discussion is annoying.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
...and the Klan can make *exactly* the same claim about Martin Luther King, Jr.
I'm not aware that King said stuff like: "All whites should be sterilized, all whites should be whipped and killed, all whites should be stripped of every single possession, all whites should be removed from their place in society, all whites are utter liars, all white dead should be thrown in anonymous mass graves, all white churches should be closed." If he said stuff like that, then he should have been restricted. Goebbels did say stuff like that about the Jews...
--------------------
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
Ley Druid, you have yet to tell us what an example of an "obscene message" might be. Until you do that, you have nothing but a strawman.
--------------------
“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
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Host hat on
Ship's Commandment 3: No personal attacks. You know better.
Host hat off
Sorry. I do know better.
[ 17. January 2005, 03:39: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
What kind of speech exactly do you favor restricting, IngoB? If it really is such a (nearly) universally recognized "inherent evil" I'd think it should be easy to explain. No need to go on and on about murder (in favor of which no one here is arguing.)
Your last sentence is actually precisely what I'm advocating: restrictions are to be set up for those things "in favor of which no one is arguing". Murder is clearly one of these.
OK, here's a list to start (not end) discussion. Restrictions should be made on speech that attacks:
- [snip]
- what a person holds sacred, in particular forms of worship.
Except that, of course, a number of people here are arguing that this speech shouldn't be restricted - which kind of takes the air out of your assertion that it is obviously "inherently evil" and should therefore be restricted by the state.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[snip]
Of course, the point of discussion here is the last point on my little list. Here I think it is important to not overemphasize the issue of diversity. Clearly, it's easier to make rules when the community is entirely homogeneous in its ideas about what is sacred. However, just because it is heterogeneous does not mean all is lost. The job then is to try to accomodate all points of view. That it is impossible to do so perfectly is no excuse for not doing it at all.
That's a pretty big leap - it's not at all clear to me how you get from "Thou shalt have no other God before me" to "be respectful of what other people hold sacred"! I note that somehow this didn't apply to followers of Baal, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
With regards to "atheists" I would say that they project their (inevitable) urge for the sacred mostly on two things: nature and/or humanity. The quasi-religious nature of many discussions about environmental issues has often been used in critiques against some proposed measure. It is then unfortunate that many "atheists" are afraid to simply answer: "That's correct, not only do I have rational arguments for my position, I also hold nature as sacred - so you are being both irrational and blasphemous!"
Well, maybe they're not answering that way not because they're afraid, but because they don't actually believe that! (Do you actually know any "atheists"? And why do you insist on the quotes around the word, anyway?) I don't know of any reason to assume there's any particular congruence between the set of atheists and the set of people who care deeply about the environment. What reason do you have for thinking there is one?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Nope. What you're saying is you want freedom of speech restricted to the degree it will not offend anyone's religious sensibilities. "You're not allowed to make fun of God" is what you seem to want. That's ludicrous and inane.
Well, indeed, I expect you to not make fun of my God as far as that can reasonably be asked of you. I grant the same respect to others, and of course to whatever you happen to consider sacred.
However, to just say "I don't give a shit about any Christian ideas of the sacred because freedom of speech guarantees that I can abuse that lot at will." - that is wrong in principle, even inherently evil.
But aren't you (largely) arguing with other Christians on this thread? Surely you're not accusing them of saying they "don't give a shit about any Christian ideas of the sacred"? Maybe it's possible for some Christians to be secure in their sense of the sacred, regardless of other people's opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I keep advocating a return to fundamentals everybody agrees on, you keep claiming I want to push exclusively my agenda. There's a point where this turns from misunderstandings and disagreements on a difficult topic into an open accusation that I'm lying, that I have hidden sinister plans. Please either scale down your rhetorics a bit or make a proper personal attack. I can deal with either, but your raving on about my Stalinesque personality under the guise of factual discussion is annoying.
Well I for one don't think you're lying or Stalinesque; I just think you vastly overrate your own ability to determine what is and is not inherently good or evil.
If there really were such "fundamentals everybody agrees on" I'd have thought you'd have an easier time getting everybody to agree to them.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Except that, of course, a number of people here are arguing that this speech shouldn't be restricted - which kind of takes the air out of your assertion that it is obviously "inherently evil" and should therefore be restricted by the state.
But I'm not arguing directly from what people here say about speech. KenWritez says he wants free speech about hate killings etc. So you could conclude as well that murder is not "inherent evil". But it is. Rather, I'm first observing what sort of "fundamentals" human societies always have. And then I'm arguing for a restriction of speech aimed against these fundamentals. Now, that the overwhelming majority of people throughout history and throughout the world held something sacred is objective historical fact. That is then a "fundamental" of human nature, and I can ask for restrictions. Thereby I show that the "absolute free speech" advocates have it (slightly) wrong. This is my actual chain of argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's a pretty big leap - it's not at all clear to me how you get from "Thou shalt have no other God before me" to "be respectful of what other people hold sacred"! I note that somehow this didn't apply to followers of Baal, etc.
Again, there's no leap required because I'm not starting with my Christian position and trying to work my way back. Rather, I see that having some idea of "sacredness" is inherent to humanity, and ask for restrictions based on that. This then does indeed protect my Christian position, but it clearly also protects the followers of Baal. Because it's not mental content specific, it's mental structure specific. There's a sense of holiness in every human heart, but what that sense is about is equivocal. Hence in a diverse society I must argue for protection of all diverse ideas about what is sacred.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
(Do you actually know any "atheists"? And why do you insist on the quotes around the word, anyway?) I don't know of any reason to assume there's any particular congruence between the set of atheists and the set of people who care deeply about the environment. What reason do you have for thinking there is one?
I'm putting quotes around "atheists" because in my experience most "atheists" by name simply do not care much about God. A few do care about the question of God, but have decided that it can't be answered (I used to belong to that category, and was raised that way). It's better to call such people agnostic. The number of people who strongly believe that there is no God - proper atheists - is not so large in my experience.
I readily admit that I'm speculating a bit on what life-long "atheists" do with the "sacred instinct". Being touched by nature, feelings of awe and completeness inspired by a natural scene, I think that everybody has experienced that? Seeing the devotion some people pour into environmental issues which have no immediate impact on them, I'm speculating on a connection. But perhaps one should rather look at patriotism and nationalism as new "religious" focus. Or at good old Mammon, ever popular god and at the cult of the human body.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But aren't you (largely) arguing with other Christians on this thread? Surely you're not accusing them of saying they "don't give a shit about any Christian ideas of the sacred"? Maybe it's possible for some Christians to be secure in their sense of the sacred, regardless of other people's opinions.
Well, I'm happy for these Christians that they feel that way. I would have expected more understanding from them that I may feel otherwise. But that's fine. Since I'm not arguing my case from within Christianity, in the end it does not matter. Certainly, there's still plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, ... around who feel that one shouldn't overly denigrate the sacred. In the end, it may be that uncaring treatment of all religions by some secularists does more for inter-faith dialogue than initiatives from within the faiths. Which is very sad, but very human...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If there really were such "fundamentals everybody agrees on" I'd have thought you'd have an easier time getting everybody to agree to them.
I believe much of this discussion is entirely theoretical and people get lost in their nice ideals. There never has been absolutely free speech, and there never will be as long as one lives in a society of any form. I think it's better to discuss what the restrictions should be based on, rather than to keep them hidden. The focus on government and written law is also somewhat misleading. As if society had no other ways of punishing someone than by throwing them into prison.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
[...] The question here is whether there should be any boundaries when dealing with any significant religious figure in the media AND in particular, should Christians mobilise.
- Boundaries: No.
- Mobilise: If they feel so inclined.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
All things are possible with faith in goodness. But evil can't be attacked directly as it doesn't exist. Evil is simply the absence of goodness, just as darkness is only the absence of light.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I keep advocating a return to fundamentals everybody agrees on, you keep claiming I want to push exclusively my agenda. There's a point where this turns from misunderstandings and disagreements on a difficult topic into an open accusation that I'm lying, that I have hidden sinister plans. Please either scale down your rhetorics a bit or make a proper personal attack. I can deal with either, but your raving on about my Stalinesque personality under the guise of factual discussion is annoying.
Tell you what, IngoB - I propose a division of labour. You can stick to the point of the debate and I'll stick to the hosting of it.
But leave the personal attacks and the incitement to open warfare out of it. Or start a proper fight in Hell. Either is fine by me.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Would anybody mobilise if they didn't feel that change was possible?
You may well get the BBC to promise not to show JS-tO again. You may even get them to promise never again to show anything blasphemous (though I hope not).
There are many ways to achieve change without involving the government. Why bring them into it at all, other than to save you the effort of having to protest again the next time this sort of thing happens?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Marvin
Every time you vote at a general election you are setting in course a train of events that will have significant and profound effects on personal and community life from law and order to mental health care, from Belmarsh detainees to binge drinking, from euthanasia to licences to broadcast. I cannot live my faith life in compartments like that. What happens in the legislature has its own proper significance for the kingdom of God.
[ 17. January 2005, 09:26: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
OK, here's a list to start (not end) discussion. Restrictions should be made on speech that attacks:
- [snip]
- what a person holds sacred, in particular forms of worship.
So Dante's Divine Comedy should be censored because of its treatment of the Prophet Mohammed and the Canterbury Tales should be censored because it implies that ritual infanticide is part of Jewish religious practice. The Talmud, one gathers, is not entirely warming on the subject of our Lord. Should that be censored too?
The matter is a lot more complicated than identifying things that are morally objectionable and banning them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What happens in the legislature has its own proper significance for the kingdom of God.
Perhaps. But that same legislature has to cater for those of all faiths and none, so should not favour any particular religion more (or less) than the others.
Which is, of course, to say that it shouldn't bring in laws based solely on the morals and ethics of one small element of it's society. Like, for instance, anti-blasphemy laws.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I'm not so sure about that. Truth isn't necesarily in the majority or else Nazism would have been self authenticating.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
InqoB
quote:
I will stick to the modest goal of restricting speech with regards to evil that is unacceptable to everyone.
I would go further and restrict what is unacceptable to anyone.
Or have you a surefire way to define what everyone finds unacceptable?
This thread alone has shown how impossible that is.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Satirising or picking apart of those attitudes, however, is a common tactic - such as some of the Louis Theroux programmes.
For those who are hard of humour, that's exactly what the Jerry Springer Opera is doing. Satirising people with the kinds of language, attitudes, and lifestyles that people seem to object to so much.
Actually that's what the Jerry Springer TV show was doing. Jerry doesn't seem to approve very muc of the folk he gets to humilate themselves on his show. I doubt if he'd be found having dinner with many of them.
The London opera is taking the piss out of Jerry taking the piss out of Americans. Its post-ironic meta-satire.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
InqoB
quote:
I will stick to the modest goal of restricting speech with regards to evil that is unacceptable to everyone.
I would go further and restrict what is unacceptable to anyone.
Or have you a surefire way to define what everyone finds unacceptable?
This thread alone has shown how impossible that is.
You've completely confused me. You're going to restrict stuff that could be offensive / unacceptable to anyone. That's this board gone for a start
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Or have you a surefire way to define what everyone finds unacceptable?
Well for a start, if everyone finds something unacceptable then there is no need to ban it, since no-one will be saying/doing it anyway...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I am deeply, deeply offended by Big Brother,all TV coverage of football, tennis, golf, in fact amlost all sport. And most soap operas.
So I want it all off the BBC NOW! And ITV.
And we can stuff the Daily Mail while we are at it.
And all political speech that does not make it clear that all Tories are bastards. Including some of the present Labour Cabinet.
And lets get rid of idiotic namby-pamby fluffy-bunny neopagans, soft greens, astrologers, so-called wiccans, Odinists, "new agers", crystal healing victims, Scientologists, liberal Anglicans and wishy-washy brain-dead cotton-wool thinkers in general. Including anyone who thinks that logic is somehow opposed to emotion, and that one is masculine and the other feminine.
And sports teachers. Everything sports teachers say offends me.
No platform!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Ley Druid, you have yet to tell us what an example of an "obscene message" might be. Until you do that, you have nothing but a strawman.
Following you quote of Justice Harlan I would like to add Miller v California
quote:
This is one of a group of "obscenity-pornography" cases being reviewed by the Court in a re-examination of standards enunciated in earlier cases involving what Mr. Justice Harlan called "the intractable obscenity problem." Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 704 (1968) (concurring and dissenting).
Appellant conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, euphemistically called "adult" material. After a jury trial, he was convicted of violating California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene matter, 1 [413 U.S. 15, 17] and the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, summarily affirmed the judgment without opinion. Appellant's conviction was specifically [413 U.S. 15, 18] based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures; they complained to the police.
The brochures advertise four books entitled "Intercourse," "Man-Woman," "Sex Orgies Illustrated," and "An Illustrated History of Pornography," and a film entitled "Marital Intercourse." While the brochures contain some descriptive printed material, primarily they consist of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed.
The standard of obscenity, "The Miller Test", set forth in this ruling is the one used by the FCC today.
In the real world, no one can broadcast an obscene message and then claim that legislation against such broadcasts is only a strawman. Use of this word does seem to be a popular debating tactic here on the ship of fools.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I am deeply, deeply offended by Big Brother,all TV coverage of football, tennis, golf, in fact amlost all sport. And most soap operas.
So I want it all off the BBC NOW! And ITV.
And we can stuff the Daily Mail while we are at it.
And all political speech that does not make it clear that all Tories are bastards. Including some of the present Labour Cabinet.
And lets get rid of idiotic namby-pamby fluffy-bunny neopagans, soft greens, astrologers, so-called wiccans, Odinists, "new agers", crystal healing victims, Scientologists, liberal Anglicans and wishy-washy brain-dead cotton-wool thinkers in general. Including anyone who thinks that logic is somehow opposed to emotion, and that one is masculine and the other feminine.
And sports teachers. Everything sports teachers say offends me.
No platform!
Yeah! Where can I sign up? Shall I email the manifesto to all my friends with instructions to pass it on?
Except I want to include all adverts that imply buying whatever will make you a better mother, or more popular, or better looking - and I demand an exemption for Eastenders.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
OK - I've got back to a computer, and ploughed through the posts that have accumulated in the last four days. I don't think real communication is going on any more, but everyone seems to have exlained their positions pretty clearly. Any chance that this could get shuffled off to Dead Horses under the heading "Jerry Springer/Freedom of Speech"? That way the next time the whole issue of whether or not speech should be restricted in any way and for any reason comes up again (as it will) those who are interested could be directed to these 16 pages before they get going.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I don't think real communication is going on any more, but everyone seems to have exlained their positions pretty clearly. Any chance that this could get shuffled off to Dead Horses under the heading "Jerry Springer/Freedom of Speech"?
Hear, bloody, hear.
And Ken, can I use (IRL) "post-ironic meta-satire" at people who are better at self-abuse than self-analysis, please?
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
(Another round of applause for The Wanderer.)
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
OK - I've got back to a computer, and ploughed through the posts that have accumulated in the last four days. I don't think real communication is going on any more, but everyone seems to have exlained their positions pretty clearly. Any chance that this could get shuffled off to Dead Horses under the heading "Jerry Springer/Freedom of Speech"?
Limbo might be a better place for the thread.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So Dante's Divine Comedy should be censored because of its treatment of the Prophet Mohammed and the Canterbury Tales should be censored because it implies that ritual infanticide is part of Jewish religious practice. The Talmud, one gathers, is not entirely warming on the subject of our Lord. Should that be censored too?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The matter is a lot more complicated than identifying things that are morally objectionable and banning them.
Yes.
It seems everybody is using on an on-off logic in their arguments here. Either one censors nothing or one censors all. This may be the only thing a computer can do. But we as humans have considerably more sophisticated processing capabilities. Let's use them, shall we?
As mentioned for the umpteenth time, every single case - like our opera here - should be judged on its merits and demerits. I'm exactly complaining that the "absolute free speech" arguments fail to do that by simply insists that "anything goes". Yes, there are lots of difficult questions to be answered regarding to who does the judging etc. Nobody said this was going to be easy. But simple solutions just will not do in a complex society - neither "absolute blasphemy control" nor "absolute free speech" will work.
I furthermore notice that few people are as consequent as KenWritez ( ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) with regards to that) and refuse my entire list of fundamentals. Instead it's only the "sacred" bit that get's attacked, although I sincerely mean "sacred" in the most general way thinkable (not just "Christian"). However, this "fundamental" of human nature has at least as much historical support as the rest. Hence I wonder if the one and only truly sacred belief of (post-)modernity is that nothing is sacred. A belief, of course, which has to be be protected - within reason - for its sacredness... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It seems everybody is using on an on-off logic in their arguments here. Either one censors nothing or one censors all. This may be the only thing a computer can do. But we as humans have considerably more sophisticated processing capabilities. Let's use them, shall we?
This is a category error, and it is a revealing one.
Those that think killing humans is wrong are not going to be persuaded that some killing of humans is OK, nor that the only options are killing all humans or killing no humans. They fully understand that there is a middle ground between the two absolutes, but see the middle ground as only part of one absolute - because you can't just partly kill someone.
The same is true with freedom of expression.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
They fully understand that there is a middle ground between the two absolutes, but see the middle ground as only part of one absolute - because you can't just partly kill someone.
The same is true with freedom of expression.
Just when I thought I could leave this thread as a sweet-sour bowl of Greek olive oil and Moderna balsamic, here we go again. Rook, I really don't understand the point you are making here. Are you saying in freedom of speech there is a middle ground between no censorship and absolute censorship, but the middle ground is part of one of the absolutes? What does that mean?
--------------------
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
Sorry to prolong this Glimmer.
I'm saying that they seem to see the middle ground as being abhorrent in the same way as one extreme. Some people see a single murder as similarly abhorrent as having all people murdered; some people see a single restriction of freedom of speech as being similarly abhhorrent as having all freedom of speech restricted.
I'm not sure that it is absolutely true. But I can see how anyone assuming this sort of stance isn't going to be swayed with arguments for practical compromise. Isn't this a fair description of the endless loop we're seeing?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
100% agreement! Thank you. I can't see how there can be a resolution here and I can't see a lot more constructive input coming. Think I'll just look in from time to time, having said a long time ago what I came to say.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Those that think killing humans is wrong are not going to be persuaded that some killing of humans is OK, nor that the only options are killing all humans or killing no humans. They fully understand that there is a middle ground between the two absolutes, but see the middle ground as only part of one absolute - because you can't just partly kill someone.
...
I'm saying that they seem to see the middle ground as being abhorrent in the same way as one extreme. Some people see a single murder as similarly abhorrent as having all people murdered; some people see a single restriction of freedom of speech as being similarly abhhorrent as having all freedom of speech restricted.
"Those that think", "some people", who are these people? Can RooK provide something they have said, or does he merely wish to put words in their mouths?
A billion plus Catholics, for example, believe that killing is wrong (as contrary to God's law "Thou shalt not kill") but they CAN be persuaded that killing of some humans is OK (for self-defense).
Murder is the killing of an innocent. You can't suggest a crime that an innocent person has committed that warrants killing him or her.
You can suggest crimes that warrant restricting the speech of a criminal. Show me the people opposed to restricting the expression of explicit pornographic material to children. Show me the people opposed to limiting the freedom of speech of spies.
I suspect the "those that think" and "some people" to which RooK refers, are applicable to a vanishingly small number of people.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
A billion Catholics? Holy crap that's a lot of hypocritical morons. But I digress.
If you don't like my conjectural explanation theory, attempting to describe the argumentative paradox some participants appear to be unable to escape from, that's fine Ley Druid. Feel free to supply an alternate description. Or, feel free to continue with your oh-so-entertaining cycle. Again. And savour all that you accomplish by it.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
It is, I suppose, at this point that I observe that comments about the debating style of other posters tend to shade effortlessly into personal attacks.
But you boys know that, don't you?
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Some people, myself included, would argue that the Court's ruling in Miller was seriously flawed. The standard that it created is incurably vague and, more disturbingly, it creates an exception to the First Amendment where none existed previously. Justice Douglas had it right in his dissent: "The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are "offensive" to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society."
Nevertheless, you are correct that Miller has become the primary standard used today. What you seem to still be missing is that even Miller does not allow restrictions on the communication of an idea. As Chief Burger wrote further on in the Miller decision, "The First Amendment protects works which, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, regardless of whether the government or a majority of the people approve of the ideas these works represent." There is no idea so offensive that its expression is unprotected by the First Amendment. The form of an expression might be ruled to be "obscene" under community standards, but the substance of the message cannot be restricted.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
There is no idea so offensive that its expression is unprotected by the First Amendment.
Doesn't Miller suggest to you that ideas that DO NOT "have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" might be so offensive that their expression is unprotected by the First Amendment? The FCC suggests the expression of such ideas is not protected.
What intrigues me about your view is how would you respond if somebody said they just wanted to restrict the manner in which JStO was expressed, namely NOT on the BBC?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Doesn't Miller suggest to you that ideas that DO NOT "have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" might be so offensive that their expression is unprotected by the First Amendment?
No, it suggests that some works may not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In other words, the main purpose of some works, i.e., forms of expression, is not to communicate an idea, opinion, or viewpoint. In this case, the Court was talking about commercial advertisements. Because such works are not protected speech, they may be restricted on grounds of obscenity.
quote:
What intrigues me about your view is how would you respond if somebody said they just wanted to restrict the manner in which JStO was expressed, namely NOT on the BBC?
As I've said, I would see that as viewpoint discrimination by the government. When the state starts deciding what ideas are acceptable, you are only a hop, skip, and jump from oppression.
In this case, the state might avoid the problem by divesting itself of its interests in television broadcasting, by applying viewpoint-neutral restrictions on what can be broadcast, or by allowing the offensive speech in question to be broadcast. It chose the latter.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, that the overwhelming majority of people throughout history and throughout the world held something sacred is objective historical fact. That is then a "fundamental" of human nature, and I can ask for restrictions. Thereby I show that the "absolute free speech" advocates have it (slightly) wrong. This is my actual chain of argument.
Actually, the common theme seems much more like "Our God is sacred - all others are false gods and idols." At least, this appears to be the tradition of the three great monotheistic religions. To require their adherents to respect false gods (to the extent of forbidding them to say that those gods are false) does damage to the fundamental tenets.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hence in a diverse society I must argue for protection of all diverse ideas about what is sacred.
All ideas about what is sacred? This seems to put the entire range of public discourse at the mercy of the party with the thinnest skin, or at least the touchiest notion of what is sacred to them. Much more reasonable, I think, to start with the principle that people shouldn't be required to revere things they don't hold sacred.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I believe much of this discussion is entirely theoretical and people get lost in their nice ideals. There never has been absolutely free speech, and there never will be as long as one lives in a society of any form. I think it's better to discuss what the restrictions should be based on, rather than to keep them hidden. The focus on government and written law is also somewhat misleading. As if society had no other ways of punishing someone than by throwing them into prison.
"Entirely theoretical?" In the US, the KKK is allowed to hold parades and rallies, even though most find the Klan deeply offensive. We do this because we have decided that, in general, it's a bad idea to give the government the power to restrict the content of expression. (There are restrictions; we've discussed obscenity, for example, but there's also slander, libel, and rules regarding commercial speech. These restrictions are anything but hidden, though; there's plenty of case law for anyone with the interest to plow through it.)
The focus on government and written law is of particular significance (in addition to being an important aspect of this entire thread!) because of the government's unique ability to throw people in jail. You're quite right that society shows disapproval in other ways; but then why can't you be satisfied with excommunication, shunning, snubbing, or some other non-state-enforced method? Why must you drag the government into it?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
To require their adherents to respect false gods (to the extent of forbidding them to say that those gods are false) does damage to the fundamental tenets.
There's respect, and then there is respect. I gladly embrace the advances modern society has brought on the "Kill them all, let God sort them out." issue. So do most Christian churches these days, including the "usual suspect" RC. One is not required to share belief in order to respect it. Indeed, that would not really be respect, just agreement. Neither does one have to give up ones own belief that others are indeed mistaken. Modern inter-faith tolerance (definitely a good modern development) is based on the idea of a "common search for the sacred" and the idea that faith can't be forced. There's no need to chop someone's head off just because one thinks they are searching in the wrong spot.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
All ideas about what is sacred? This seems to put the entire range of public discourse at the mercy of the party with the thinnest skin, or at least the touchiest notion of what is sacred to them.
Only by applying the usual dramatics of on-off logic. Who has said that all a religion wants can be accomodated? In reality, one needs to pragmatically seek compromise, seek the solution with most benefit and least harm. As I've said several times before, "blasphemy control" does not rule absolute either.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Much more reasonable, I think, to start with the principle that people shouldn't be required to revere things they don't hold sacred.
What a weird suggestion, of course they shouldn't! However, just because I don't revere Krishna does not mean that I have to publically ridicule him and his followers. Of course, if I'm asked about my opinion, I don't have to lie. But again, there's many ways of expressing the same thought. What stops me from adopting the expression that is least likely to incite hatred? Finally, if I think the followers of Krishna in exercising their religion do some serious harm to other goods of society, then of course I can critique them. But the critique then should focus on the good that is harmed, not on the followers of Krishna per se.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"Entirely theoretical?" In the US, the KKK is allowed to hold parades and rallies, even though most find the Klan deeply offensive.
Well, there's nothing wrong with holding parades and rallies, of course. If on these occasions the KKK is inciting racial hatred in an unequivocal and drastic manner, which is given broad and sustained public attention through for example the media, then I believe the state should shut these activities down. That's my opinion.
What makes this rather (OK, not "entirely" ) theoretical is the problem of "volume" I've mentioned before. Just because you stand somewhere and scream your lungs out does not mean that many of your fellow citizens will hear you. If the KKK is reported only as a news item along the lines of "idiot racist group is marching in some Southern backwater", well, then they will not have much impact (and the impact they have is not helping them). There's not much reason why the state should move on that. However, if major news channels would air hours of KKK agitprop, then the state should stop it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The focus on government and written law is of particular significance (in addition to being an important aspect of this entire thread!) because of the government's unique ability to throw people in jail. You're quite right that society shows disapproval in other ways; but then why can't you be satisfied with excommunication, shunning, snubbing, or some other non-state-enforced method? Why must you drag the government into it?
It's all a question of volume. The louder the volume gets the less an individual can do. At the level of mass propaganda, who but the state has still the power to counter-act? To a large extent our values are protected against large volume attacks through the habitual self-censorship of the media (which can be official, written down in some booklet, or unofficial). Some stuff just doesn't get shown even if it would get ratings. At least that's so in Europe and Australia, but somehow I doubt that even in the US you could see more than a couple of soundbites from that KKK rally. The problem with this system is that it relies on the "good judgement" of the media, turning them into a sort of unelected and largely untrained judiciary on what is "appropriate". Plus, of course, the owners of the media enterprises really want only one thing: earn more money. So when the system fails, it's kind of hard to fix. If for example the BBC did acquire an "anti-Christian" attitude (I'm not saying they have), I don't see any authority other than the state which could fix that. (Before you ask, you are welcome to substitute "anti-Hindu" or "anti-atheist) in that.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Come dead horses, rotting dead horses, let me ride away........
(To the tune of "White Horses", for those with long memories.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Wanderer, this subject does not meet the criteria laid out for Dead Horses. If you don't want to read it, then don't.
--------------------
“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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
And Ken, can I use (IRL) "post-ironic meta-satire" at people who are better at self-abuse than self-analysis, please?
Oh of course. Though I don't think I thought up "post-ironic". Its a real word, sort of.
From the 1960s to the late 1970s any Brit with the remotest pretenstions to coolth wouldn't have been seen dead asscotiating themselves with certain cultural manifestations. Like Country and Western music, or TV soap operas, or boy bands, or football.
In the 1980s you could do all those things because you were being ironic. That made everything alright, and you could still get away with going to trendy bars and wearing black all the time.
But by the 1990s you could be post-ironic. You could watch Coronation Street and say you enjoyed it, as a sort of comment on a previous generation of pretentious intellectuals who watched because they didn't like it as a sort of comment on...
and along this path lies Jerry Springer, the Opera.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What stops me from adopting the expression that is least likely to incite hatred?
I don't know, maybe the fact that the central figure of your religion, as quoted in your scriptures, chose some rather inflammatory expressions. Unless you'd like to swear off of preaching, teaching, and professing some of what he said, then you are going to need somewhat more freedom of speech than you are advocating.
quote:
Finally, if I think the followers of Krishna in exercising their religion do some serious harm to other goods of society, then of course I can critique them. But the critique then should focus on the good that is harmed, not on the followers of Krishna per se.
And does it do much good to identify the good that is harmed without identifying the source of the harm? I would think that to solve the problem, you would need to name both, as well as a proposed solution. In order to manage all of that, you are going to need quite a broad freedom to express yourself 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
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
Ingo, what you're advocating is a version of free speech that is so encumbered by addendums, exceptions and qualifiers based on nothing more than your personal biases that "free speech" is anything but free.
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "what a person holds sacred, in particular forms of worship."
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "procreation, in particular long-term social and/or personal relationships aimed at the conception and/or rearing of children;" (Does this mean I can't satirize the Pope's stand on birth control?)
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "a person's possession of (some) material objects;" (So I guess I can't call Scot an ecology-destroying, soulless, First World patriarchal bigot because he drives an SUV?)
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "a person's body: health and life;" (Well, now you've taken away Glimmer's freedom to call me a fat, reactionary bastard.)
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "a person's social standing, in particular his reputation;" (No more mocking RooK as a bad example of Canadian-hood because he doesn't eat back bacon, wear a tocque or end his sentences with "eh?")
According to you, I have the right of free speech, BUT I can't criticize "respect for the elderly and dead, in particular care for parents and handling of bodies;" (You realize you just outlawed Monty Python's "Dead Grandmother" sketch?)
You have loaded down free speech with so many qualifiers, addendums and exceptions that you've made it completely unfree. You've turned it into, "Your free to speak as you please, except when I don't like it."
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The job then is to try to accomodate all points of view.
I suggest you read Aesop's fable, The Man, the Boy and the Donkey.
Ingo, ideally, a nation's citizens are allowed to speak their ideas and opinions without the State punishing them for doing so. You don't seem to agree. I've written at length about the reality of creeping totalitariansism if your philosophy were adopted, and you've ignored it and said I've been calling you a Stalinist and a totalitarian.
Given the restrictions on the freedom of speech you propose, frankly, there is little difference between your policy and Stalin's as regards free speech. He didn't allow criticism of the Communist Party, himself, the actions of the politburo or his secret police organs; you would prohibit any criticism of the elements in your list above. The only difference in the free speech restrictions you both propose(d) are the names on the list. Both of you appear to hold the State's health and welfare as so fragile it cannot allow certain ideas to be aired. (If I've misread you on this, please correct me.)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You need to re-read your American civil rights history, then.
I'm not arguing history.
Your posts on this topic bear this out, and not to your benefit. Reading history helps one grasp human nature and what happens when the State begins whittling away civil rights under the guise of "protecting its citizens."
I suggest you Google Manzanar Relocation Camp, yellow journalism, black list, HUAC, Joseph McCarthy, Weimar Republic, Martin Luther King, Jr., Alabama freedom riders, ACLU, Bull Connor, Skokie, Illinois + American Nazi party.
FWIW, I'm not intending this an attack; I'm intending this as an analysis of your opinion, which I consider naive, illogical and politically toxic. Be that as it may, I still want you to have the right to air it and I'd fight for your right to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if King did advocate the killing of whites, then his speech should have been restricted. [....] I'm not aware that King said stuff like: "All whites should be sterilized, all whites should be whipped and killed [....]"
He didn't, but he was accused of it.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Nope. What you're saying is you want freedom of speech restricted to the degree it will not offend anyone's religious sensibilities. "You're not allowed to make fun of God" is what you seem to want. That's ludicrous and inane.
Well, indeed, I expect you to not make fun of my God as far as that can reasonably be asked of you.
Then you expect in vain. Rights are absolute, they're not about being "reasonable." People don't fight to the death to protect being "reasonable." If I don't have the freedom to mock or attack what you call God, and you don't have the freedom to mock or attack what I call God, then neither of us has free speech.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Was this opera worth the hurt it has caused to a religious community?
I ask you: Is the hurt to society as a whole, the erosion of civil rights your version of censorship would cause, worth the tiny offense caused by JStO?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, to just say "I don't give a shit about any Christian ideas of the sacred because freedom of speech guarantees that I can abuse that lot at will." - that is wrong in principle, even inherently evil.
Yes, but so what? Cutting off a fellow driver in traffic is also wrong in principle and even inherently evil. So is snubbing someone by not inviting them to your party. You can't legislate against every single conceivable act of human evil, which is what you're proposing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
When your sense of offense changes, when the scope of what you consider offensive increases (as is human nature), so will the actionable acts of speech you'll want to control, until finally, logically extending this situation, anyone disagreeing with you is liable for punishment and silencing.
I keep advocating a return to fundamentals everybody agrees on, you keep claiming I want to push exclusively my agenda.
That's because you *are* pushing your own agenda. No one else is supporting your list of exclusions to the right of speech, not even Glimmer or FG. There will be no fundamentals *everyone* agrees upon. Look at this thread or Kerygmania or even at MW. You might get a majority, but not unanimity.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's a point where this turns from misunderstandings and disagreements on a difficult topic into an open accusation that I'm lying, that I have hidden sinister plans. Please either scale down your rhetorics a bit or make a proper personal attack. I can deal with either, but your raving on about my Stalinesque personality under the guise of factual discussion is annoying.
Cool your jets, Rocket Ranger. I'm not making a personal attack nor accusing you of lying. If I do, I'll say so plainly, you won't have to guess. I'm not even accusing you of having "hidden sinister plans." What I *am* doing is pointing out exactly where your ill-considered proposal would take a nation by comparing the consequences to a past regime which had a similar philosophy.
Your philosophy of free speech can lead only to greater and greater intolerance and loss of civil rights. The very freedom you claim to support is contradicted by your position. You say you want free speech, but what you promote is speech that offends no one, and by that definition, you'll have no free speech.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Scott, many thanks for the link to the criteria for Dead Horses. I actually thought this did fit, as the opening statement: quote:
Dead Horses is where we send discussion threads that have been debated endlessly on the Ship of Fools boards before. The reason we do this is so that predictable subjects are confined to one area, allowing more creative and original topics to have the run of the other boards.
seemed to sum this thread up very well - to my eyes anyway.
The starting point here was new (Jerry Springer) but the debate about restrictions on freedom of speech has come up many times before, and will do so again. The broad form the topic takes is well known - some shipmates say with great passion that any restriction on freedom of speech is as bad as having no freedom at all, others say some limits are fine in a democratic society, and neither side budges. So entrenched are these positions that I personally think they have deep emotional roots that are largely impervious to rational discourse.
However, as you say I do not have to read this and - as always - I defer to the superior wisdom of the Admins and Hosts. Have fun those of you who have the will power to keep going with this.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The broad form the topic takes is well known - some shipmates say with great passion that any restriction on freedom of speech is as bad as having no freedom at all, others say some limits are fine in a democratic society, and neither side budges.
ISTM that one difference here is that someone is suggesting in the USA there are no restrictions on the sacrosanct absolute freedom of expression.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The Supreme Court has, in fact, held that, while the State can, in certain circumstances, restrict the manner in which offensive views are expressed, the State may not prohibit the expression of the views.
This in spite of the fact that the State has prohibited the expression of obscene views in broadcasts, prohibited the expression of indecent views in broadcasts between 6 am and 10 pm etc. etc.
When someone like Father Gregory says he can't understand the American psyche, I think that it is only by observing examples of American cognitive dissonance that he might come to realize that acknowledging it is more productive that trying to understand it. It's like arguing with a member of the flat earth society while flying around the world. Furthermore, I suspect we all have our own examples of cognitive dissonance.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
In other words, the main purpose of some works, i.e., forms of expression, is not to communicate an idea, opinion, or viewpoint.
Given that an accepted definition of expression is quote:
the communication (in speech or writing) of your beliefs or opinions
I don't see how a form of expression could not have as its main purpose quote:
to communicate an idea, opinion, or viewpoint
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
<snip> BUT I can't criticize <snip> BUT I can't criticize<snip> BUT I can't criticize <snip> BUT I can't criticize <snip> BUT I can't criticize <snip> BUT I can't criticize <snip>
This is getting boring. Clearly, in my system you can do all this. The point is, however, that if you do so you also can be asked whether your critique does more harm than good. And if you do massively more harm than good with your critique, you may be asked to pipe down. And yes, possibly with force, after a due process (the details of which are clearly worth discussing). I'm sorry that my system does not fit into your black and white scheme. But since I'm pragmatically looking for the best solution, I'm forced to deal in shades of gray.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You've turned it into, "Your free to speak as you please, except when I don't like it."
It's particularly tedious to refute time and again the idea that I want to enforce my ideas of what is appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Ingo, ideally, a nation's citizens are allowed to speak their ideas and opinions without the State punishing them for doing so.
Actually, I totally agree. That is a great ideal we all should keep in our minds - while we get down to pragmatically dealing with reality! There's many such great ideals I'm keeping in my mind, like for example the idea that everybody should enjoy the wealth to live the life they want. These ideals will shape the way I deal with reality. However, an attempt to enforce ideals in reality invariably leads to disaster. The latter ideal for example, if not given a careful reality check, may lead you to the idea of enforcing communism. What good that did to the world we know all too well...
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Both of you appear to hold the State's health and welfare as so fragile it cannot allow certain ideas to be aired. (If I've misread you on this, please correct me.)
I don't think the state is particularly fragile. However, I do not think it is infinitely resilient against any attack. Further, long before the state as a whole goes down the drain, citizens of that state may get hurt considerably. State self-defence is one issue, duty of care another. If your government holds fantastic ideals and the people are suffering, something is wrong and should be fixed.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Then you expect in vain. Rights are absolute, they're not about being "reasonable."
That's it in a nutshell... And who is the tyrannt now? Who require a power not approachable by reason? Rights are made for people, not people for rights. If rights hurt people, they are not rights, they are wrongs. Any good can be twisted to evil, and there's no better way of doing so than to declare it "absolute". There's only one absolute Good, and it resides in heaven, there is no such thing on earth among humans.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
People don't fight to the death to protect being "reasonable."
Actually, I'm willing to fight to the death for that.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
I ask you: Is the hurt to society as a whole, the erosion of civil rights your version of censorship would cause, worth the tiny offense caused by JStO?
Well now, that's a good question! Glad you are finally coming around. And if upon consideration we come to the conclusion that indeed the hurt was tiny (rather than grave, as apparently many people think) and not running the opera on the BBC would cause massive damage to society (rather than hardly register, which I consider more likely) then indeed we should insist that this opera must be shown. Not having seen it, I can't really comment. All I'm saying is that considering this question is entirely justified, because the damage to society of some restriction of free speech is not infinite.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You can't legislate against every single conceivable act of human evil, which is what you're proposing to do.
Sigh. And where did I propose that? I've mentioned several times that I consider the "volume" of the speech of prime importance. Running something on national broadcast is very loud and hence it's completely justified to look at what is being broadcasted.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
No one else is supporting your list of exclusions to the right of speech, not even Glimmer or FG. There will be no fundamentals *everyone* agrees upon.
Lack of comment does not mean lack of agreement. Be that as it may, my argument rests on two steps - and it's rather crucial to say with which step you do not agree. First, I say that there are a number of "human fundamentals" which the overwhelming majority of people have held through all times and cultures. That's my little list (which I actually put up for debate, not for admiration...). Second, I say that freedom of speech may be restricted if it gravely attacks one of these "fundamentals". Now, do you disagree with the first step? If so, please state which of my "fundamentals" cannot be supported by an objective look at worldwide history. Or do you disagree with the second step? Then we are led back to the discussion above, one of weighting goods against each other.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I think your first step is pretty far-fetched. You say you're simply observing that most people throughout history have held something sacred, and from that concluding that the state should ban (at least some) speech that attacks such beliefs. But isn't hostility towards others' beliefs just as time-honored and universal as reverence of one's own? It seems to me a lot of OT prophets railing against false gods (probably trying for maximum volume, I expect) would quickly run afoul of your proposed regime...
... which is what, precisely? You said, in response to Ken's complaints that certain criticisms would be banned, that
quote:
Clearly, in my system you can do all this. The point is, however, that if you do so you also can be asked whether your critique does more harm than good. And if you do massively more harm than good with your critique, you may be asked to pipe down. And yes, possibly with force, after a due process (the details of which are clearly worth discussing).
There's a lot of "can be asked" and "may be asked" in this. It is not my impression that governments are in the habit of "asking" people to "pipe down." Typically fines and jail terms are in order.
Just "asking" doesn't seem to require the attention of the state. People with opposing views can pony up and sponsor their own, countering speech, if they care so much - as they will, if the offense is so obviously inherently evil. So why not cut to the chase and tell us what jail sentences you'd suggest for what kinds of behavior? Are we talking felony here, or is blasphemy just a misdemeanor?
And if you protest that you don't have a list handy yet, that you're merely suggesting that there be a process for establishing some sort of mechanism for these judgements to be made (no doubt by wise, discerning people) - well, perhaps you should entertain the notion that the US (at least) already has a system, and has already done the balancing.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But isn't hostility towards others' beliefs just as time-honored and universal as reverence of one's own? It seems to me a lot of OT prophets railing against false gods (probably trying for maximum volume, I expect) would quickly run afoul of your proposed regime...
Well, I'm talking about what the state should aim for. Progress in civilization has made it ever more clear that goods should be arranged by the state to oppose each other as little as possible. I'm hopeful that civilization has progressed enough so that future advances can be gradual rather than revolutionary. I'm not entirely sure though - the main point of worry is capitalism with its aggregation of economic power in a few hands. In a revolutionary situation (prophet-inspired or not), I might break state rules and could then not expect others to keep them in opposing me. However, I think of such circumstances as evil and I prefer working for making them unnecessary. I expect a prophet of today would skillfully use, rather than oppose, the means of the modern state. And he would aim to convince, rather than to purge. But hey, there's no second-guessing God.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And if you protest that you don't have a list handy yet, that you're merely suggesting that there be a process for establishing some sort of mechanism for these judgements to be made (no doubt by wise, discerning people) - well, perhaps you should entertain the notion that the US (at least) already has a system, and has already done the balancing.
I'm most happily entertaining that notion. Indeed, I'm sure that even the US has some sort of system in place. Whether it's good, bad or ugly - I wouldn't have a clue. I'm just concerned to show the "absolute free speech" crowd that such a system may not be the ultimate evil - I hope then that they will not be as shocked when they discover that they actually live in 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
