|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Which brings us back to Orfeo's "intent" fixation, and to the question he's not yet answered, despite several posters asking: Who gets to make the determination? Who decides a) what the intent was; and b) what speech/expression is valid and what isn't?
Well I'd already answered it in Hell. The only reason I haven't put the answer up in flashing lights explicitly everywhere is because I thought it was so damned obvious.
Do you not realise this is exactly what we appoint judges and juries to do, constantly? Make decisions of this nature?
Seriously. Sit down for a minute and think about all the things where the answer to this grand, rhetorical question, one which you want me to admit has no answer, is that we appoint judges and empanel juries to decide. We get them to decide, "did he really kill her?". We get them to decide "was it rape?". We get them to decide "was that a sharp stock market trade or an illegal one?". We get them to decide "what's the degree of this damage that he's responsible for?".
THIS IS HOW THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF LAW ALREADY WORKS. If you think you're going to get me to go "oh gosh, yes, it's too novel and difficult", then think again. We already have an entire system that SAYS who gets to decide. And you can sit at home and argue about how the judge/jury got it wrong as much as you like, but as far as enforcement is concerned, it doesn't matter a damn. It doesn't matter whether you think that OJ Simpson killed his wife or Michael Jackson molested children or Rodney King was assaulted or racially segregated schools are a good thing or whatever, we have a system that designates WHOSE opinion counts and who gets to decide.
Next question. Make it a hard one.
[ 21. September 2012, 17:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I mean, every single time a jury is given the option of alternative charges of murder or manslaughter, what are they deciding?
INTENT!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I understand that intent is a perfectly legitimate legal category that can be put on trial. I just don't think blasphemy laws and banning anything that could possibly hurt anyone's feelings are good ideas.
[ 21. September 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
THIS IS HOW THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF LAW ALREADY WORKS.
<Blathering removed for brevity>
Well, yeah. And in the U.S., it means there's no responsibility on the part of the filmmaker for the unsolicited and uncontrolled actions of others, legally speaking. Thank God. Australians are, apparently, not so lucky.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Next question. Make it a hard one.
You also argue the filmmaker is morally responsible.
Other groups of people (religions, racial minorities, sexual orientations, etc.) get insulted in similar fashion (or worse), and generally don't burn buildings and murder people. How is this filmmaker responsible when this particular batch of assholes goes off the deep end, though others in similar circumstances (or, to be fair, the vast majority of Muslims in the same circumstance) do not? It seems to me the major difference is in the response, not the insult- and that he response is solely the responsibility of the respondent.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I understand that intent is a perfectly legitimate legal category that can be put on trial. I just don't think blasphemy laws and banning anything that could possibly hurt anyone's feelings is a good idea.
And once again, I have to point out that "could possibly hurt feelings" bears absolutely no resemblance to "is deliberately intended to offend".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
So you want to ban being mean?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
THIS IS HOW THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF LAW ALREADY WORKS.
<Blathering removed for brevity>
Well, yeah. And in the U.S., it means there's no responsibility on the part of the filmmaker for the unsolicited and uncontrolled actions of others, legally speaking. Thank God.
Sigh. No, that is NOT why it means that in the USA. At all. The reason it means that in the USA is because of the particular content of your law. You've just moved away from the "who gets to decide" question entirely.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It seems to me the major difference is in the response, not the insult- and that >t<he response is solely the responsibility of the respondent.
Damned typo monkey... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[x-post with Orfeo]
[ 21. September 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
You also argue the filmmaker is morally responsible.
Other groups of people (religions, racial minorities, sexual orientations, etc.) get insulted in similar fashion (or worse), and generally don't burn buildings and murder people. How is this filmmaker responsible when this particular batch of assholes goes off the deep end, though others in similar circumstances (or, to be fair, the vast majority of Muslims in the same circumstance) do not? It seems to me the major difference is in the response, not the insult- and that he response is solely the responsibility of the respondent.
So, let me get this straight. If you plan and hope for some terrible consequence, and you don't manage to succeed in achieving it, you get off?
Wow. The entire rationale for the law of attempt just vanished in smoke. As well as the rationale for all the laws about conspiracy. Doesn't matter what you were trying to do, just don't get any results and you have no responsibility.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you want to ban being mean?
Defamation law: So, you want to ban saying untrue things about people?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
In a world where Orfeo's "Freedom from offense" has been enshrined in the Constitution, corporations could sue whistle-blowers and the newspapers that publish their stories for "Inciting hatred against the corporation." Politicians could do it against their opponents too.
Fun times for everyone.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sigh. No, that is NOT why it means that in the USA. At all. The reason it means that in the USA is because of the particular content of your law. You've just moved away from the "who gets to decide" question entirely.
Sigh.
Let me try this again. In the U.S., the decision has been made by the court system that this sort of thing is, indeed, protected speech- the "who", then, is the U.S. Supreme Court.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In a world where Orfeo's "Freedom from offense" has been enshrined in the Constitution, corporations could sue whistle-blowers and the newspapers that publish their stories for "Inciting hatred against the corporation." Politicians could do it against their opponents too.
Fun times for everyone.
Ooh. I do love slippery slopes. They're so convincing (latest one here in Australia is that gay marriage will lead to legalising bestiality). Where will it end?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Defamation law: So, you want to ban saying untrue things about people?
Red herring. "Untrue" and "Offensive" are not the same thing.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In a world where Orfeo's "Freedom from offense" has been enshrined in the Constitution, corporations could sue whistle-blowers and the newspapers that publish their stories for "Inciting hatred against the corporation." Politicians could do it against their opponents too.
Fun times for everyone.
Ooh. I do love slippery slopes. They're so convincing (latest one here in Australia is that gay marriage will lead to legalising bestiality). Where will it end?
It's not a slippery slope argument, for I'm not saying that "Freedom from offense" will be the precedence for further, more ridiculous laws. It's a concrete application of precisely what you are proposing, and absolutely nothing more.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sigh. No, that is NOT why it means that in the USA. At all. The reason it means that in the USA is because of the particular content of your law. You've just moved away from the "who gets to decide" question entirely.
Sigh.
Let me try this again. In the U.S., the decision has been made by the court system that this sort of thing is, indeed, protected speech- the "who", then, is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes. On the basis of the written law as it currently stands.
Do you think the written law never changes? If so, what are you paying all those people in Congress for? Why does your Constitution have things called "amendments" in it?
You asked me who gets to decide. If you already knew the answer, why did you ask me that? If you don't agree that the law ought to say that some forms of speech are beyond the pale, then fine, but it's blindingly obvious that the mechanism exists for deciding what is within the bounds of permissible speech and what is not, regardless of where the boundary is set. How does the Supreme Court set the boundary? By deciding individual cases that come to it, on the basis of the text of your laws. If the text changes, the basis for deciding changes, but the system for making the decisions remains exactly the same.
Yes yes, more blathering. If you're going to insist that I answer a question after having failed to answer it for 9 pages, don't complain when I answer!!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Defamation law: So, you want to ban saying untrue things about people?
Red herring. "Untrue" and "Offensive" are not the same thing.
And yet you've decided that "Offensive" and "Mean" are the same thing. Nice trick there.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Defamation law: So, you want to ban saying untrue things about people?
Red herring. "Untrue" and "Offensive" are not the same thing.
And yet you've decided that "Offensive" and "Mean" are the same thing. Nice trick there.
Really? I have that power now?
Hot damn.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, let me get this straight. If you plan and hope for some terrible consequence, and you don't manage to succeed in achieving it, you get off?
How you got that, I've no idea- but let's try to parse this, shall we?
It's more like, "If you say/express something that pisses someone off, and they choose to respond by attacking a third party who had nothing to do with it, you're not liable."
See the difference there? Note the lack of "plan and hope"? There's a reason for that- it assumes facts not in evidence.
Even if we were to accept the proposition that the filmmaker did indeed "plan and hope" for the Consulate to be burned, we're still lacking a direct link between the filmmaker and the fire- he does not, to my knowledge, have command over mobs in Libya, nor, to my knowledge, did he solicit them to commit murder. They did that all on their own. Even if he hoped it would happen, that's not conspiracy- at best, it's playing a band of idiots. Not nice, to be sure- but not illegal.
-------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[Do you think the written law never changes? If so, what are you paying all those people in Congress for?
I often wonder that, myself.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does your Constitution have things called "amendments" in it?
To change the document when needed- but it's a long process, and for a reason. Turns out, it doesn't need changing very often.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You asked me who gets to decide. If you already knew the answer, why did you ask me that?
Because we're asking two questions- legal and moral. The legal answer is easy- the moral not so much. Seems they got a bit conflated, here. Sorry for any confusion.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes yes, more blathering. If you're going to insist that I answer a question after having failed to answer it for 9 pages, don't complain when I answer!!
Not complaining. I actually enjoy the exchange. I apologize if I've been insulting- it wasn't really my intention, though I see how you could take it that way.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not a slippery slope argument, for I'm not saying that "Freedom from offense" will be the precedence for further, more ridiculous laws. It's a concrete application of precisely what you are proposing, and absolutely nothing more.
I wasn't aware I'd made a precise proposal. Given the normal pace of policy proposal in government, the notion that I've somehow achieved the definitive form of this one, such that you can confidently predict what is within scope, in the last week or so is simply remarkable.
Latest drafting job I got, Zach, is for the implementation of a government announcement over 2 years ago. That's 2 years from the annoucement of the decision, after they'd considered the policy issue and decided the basic terms of what they wanted to do. After all the back and forth and weighing up options, over 2 years later we're working out the details and nuances of the wording to achieve the desired result.
Kindly don't tell me that you've already figured out what's going to happen if the law prohibits intentional offence. For starters, I live in a country that has laws relating to causing offence, and the scenario you've put forward hasn't actually happened. So you can cry wolf as much as you want, but I find it unconvincing.
Orfeo. In Australia. Ahead of the USA on the press freedom rankings for 7 years running.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Yeah, Orfeo, your post is really long and really just saying that my application of your law isn't going to happen because it just isn't. At least not in a while? So you don't find it convincing. That was obvious. Your problem is that you are failing to convince very many others. Your tack here is that it's all so obvious and true and we're all very stupid for thinking limitations on free speech are any cause for worry.
The thing about positing a self-evident freedom is that "freedom from offense" doesn't seem to be one of them to me. One does not have a right to never have his feelings hurt. I can't see that you've made the case that it ought to be.
History has shown, to me at any rate, that blasphemy laws in particular are a heap of trouble.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Orfeo. In Australia. Ahead of the USA on the press freedom rankings for 7 years running.
If you're referring the the Reporters Without Borders report, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that, at least not for the purposes of this discussion. They count a lot of stuff that doesn't have to do with government policy, or which do involve government policy, but are somewhat debatable aspects of free-speech.
In 2006, Denmark slipped a whole 19 points because of the Danish cartoons. Not that the government censored the cartoons, but that journalists were getting death threats. Someone just reading the headline, though, would assume that Denmark was sliding into fascism.
The US fell nine points largely, it seems, because of a couple of journalists who were detained in Iraq and at Guantanamo. Those detentions may very well be dubious, but it doesn't neccessarily reflect much on the overall state of the press in the US.
That said, I don't doubt that Australia deserves it's high ranking, nor that the US deserved to be taken down a few pegs. The overall criteria seem very sketchy to me, however.
link
[ 21. September 2012, 19:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Did you know that your country ranked 35th in press freedom when you were bragging about it, Orfeo?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Did you know that your country ranked 35th in press freedom when you were bragging about it, Orfeo?
Well, actually, that's from 2006. They're up to 30 for 2012, admittedly not much more impressive.
But as I say, I think these seemingly odd rankings might have more to do with crazy-quilt standards being applied between countries. In 2012, India, a multiparty democracy, ranked lower on press freedom than Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
link
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Yeah, clicking between the years I see that certain countries, such as the United States, zoom up and down in the rankings from year to year.
Which of course has nothing to do with whether it ought to be illegal to be offensive.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One thing that has surprised me looking around at various forums and blogs, is how ahistorical a lot of the analysis is. People are saying that militant Islam is just like this, and if you point out certain developments in the history of Islam in the Arab countries - for example, in the Nasserite period of Arab secularism and 'socialism' - they are not interested.
I just read Sam Harris's blog on it, and it is the same, a kind of ahistorical description of Islam, as just intolerant, aggressive, leading with a sword.
The odd thing is that this is pretty Hegelian - history seen as a bunch of ideas floating above the social fabric, as if in the ether.
I am curious where this ahistorical tendency has come from; perhaps it is religion that particularly attracts is. Are all atheists philosophical idealists? How bizarre.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing about positing a self-evident freedom is that "freedom from offense" doesn't seem to be one of them to me. One does not have a right to never have his feelings hurt. I can't see that you've made the case that it ought to be.
Because I've pointed out, multiple times, that I'm not proposing a right to never have your feelings hurt.
I'm simply not. I've never proposed any kind of freedom from offense whatsoever.
[ 22. September 2012, 02:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I mean, the only sense in which I've suggested any kind of "freedom from" is as a consequence of someone else having some responsibilities. You might as well assert that as a road-user, I have a "freedom from being hit by other cars".
Which you simply won't find on the books anywhere. Other road users have responsibilities about the way that they drive. The end result of their responsibilities might be that I have some kind of expectation that people won't cause too much negative impingement on my ability to use the road, but it simply doesn't fit into the language of rights and freedoms in the way that you're suggesting. I don't have any kind of enforceable "freedom from collisions". Nor do I need one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
as soon as you start acknowledging that there are legitimate restrictions on freedom of speech, you're on MY territory in terms of principle and it takes real chutzpah to then say how terrible I am for restricting free speech. In other words, you're actually admitting that free speech should be restricted. The question is to what extent, and on the basis of what criteria.
Whoa there, you triumphalist tiger you!
There are light years between thinking that no-one should be free to propagate paedophilia (to use an admittedly lurid and hyperbolical, but nonetheless valid, example) and thinking that no-one should be free to publish anti-religious satirical material that someone, somewhere, might find offensive, and overreact to.
[ 22. September 2012, 02:56: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Did you know that your country ranked 35th in press freedom when you were bragging about it, Orfeo?
I said it was above yours. I said nothing about its absolute ranking. Your argument was that some kind of impingement on freedom of speech would result in negative consequences for freedom of the press. Your country has pretty much the strongest freedom of speech doctrine in the world. The correlation with actual, practical freedom of the press is not apparent.
[ 22. September 2012, 02:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
as soon as you start acknowledging that there are legitimate restrictions on freedom of speech, you're on MY territory in terms of principle and it takes real chutzpah to then say how terrible I am for restricting free speech. In other words, you're actually admitting that free speech should be restricted. The question is to what extent, and on the basis of what criteria.
Whoa there, you triumphalist tiger you!
There are light years between thinking that no-one should be free to propagate paedophilia (to use an admittedly lurid and hyperbolical, but nonetheless valid, example) and thinking that no-one should be free to publish anti-religious satirical material that someone, somewhere, might find offensive, and overreact to.
Absolutely. That's a very large gap for us both to occupy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Did you know that your country ranked 35th in press freedom when you were bragging about it, Orfeo?
I said it was above yours. I said nothing about its absolute ranking. Your argument was that some kind of impingement on freedom of speech would result in negative consequences for freedom of the press. Your country has pretty much the strongest freedom of speech doctrine in the world. The correlation with actual, practical freedom of the press is not apparent.
Can't speak for Zach, but I think my point would be that the rather odd rankings indicate that the overall methodology is screwed-up, and hence any rating should be taken with a grain of salt.
I mean, for 2006...
31 South Korea 7,75
35 Australia 9,00
The ROK has a law on the books(still enforced) making it illegal to write positive stuff about North Korea. A few years back, a history professor was charged under that law for being too critical of the US role in the Korean War, and an artist was recently arrested for caricaturing the president as Hitler.
These sorts of prosecutions are few and far between, and the miscreants don't usually do jail time, but still. I can't imagine there's anything like that going on in Australia.
[ 22. September 2012, 05:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay, well, if you know of any other ranking systems that use different methodologies, I'd be interested. I just went with the one that is most familiar.
I also note that the positioning of South Korea relative to the United States goes all over the shop. You picked out 2006. The only reason I bothered mentioning the index in the first place is that Australia, with a form of law against offense (NB Which is not a law forbidding discussion of a particular topic, so hardly the same as South Korea in any case), consistently places above the United States. For all I know, the years in which South Korea's ranking drops below yours might be precisely the years when someone gets in trouble for talking about North Korea.
[ 22. September 2012, 05:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Heck, I may have done your work for you. Freedom House's version doesn't have a single global ranking system. And Wikipedia only has the results for a single year, but if I'm reading it correctly it labels both Australia and USA as "free", with USA getting a slightly better score I think. South Korea is labelled as "partly free".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Orfeo:
Thanks for the research. In a hurry here, but one quick point...
quote:
Australia, with a form of law against offense (NB Which is not a law forbidding discussion of a particular topic, so hardly the same as South Korea in any case
Well, South Korea doesn't have a law against discussing North Korea, it has a law against expressing a particular opinion about it(ie. "North Korea Rocks!!") So that does sort of make it comparable to laws against giving offense, since offense is given, essentially, by the expression of certain opinions about a topic.
This is not meant as a comment either way on how the two countries should be ranked.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
At last, some pro-Western Muslims have come out on the street in Benghazi, and apparently got rid of one of the militias. Libya has been the most surprising of the countries involved in the Arab spring.
"Many Libyans have expressed outrage at the attack on the US consulate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I mean, the only sense in which I've suggested any kind of "freedom from" is as a consequence of someone else having some responsibilities. You might as well assert that as a road-user, I have a "freedom from being hit by other cars".
Actually, you kinda do have a right to not be injured by the carelessness of others. At least I think so. And if we aren't saying that people don't have a freedom from offense, then we're back to you wanting to make it illegal in the US to be mean.
You seem to think that's different from being offensive, but I can't see it. Either the wrongness of the action is contained in the action itself (malice) or in the results of the action (hurting hurting other people's feelings). Which is it?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Orfeo - you mentioned that Australia has "a form of law against offense". I'd be interested in reading that, but have no idea where to look for it; is it possible to provide a link?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I mean, the only sense in which I've suggested any kind of "freedom from" is as a consequence of someone else having some responsibilities. You might as well assert that as a road-user, I have a "freedom from being hit by other cars".
Actually, you kinda do have a right to not be injured by the carelessness of others. At least I think so. And if we aren't saying that people don't have a freedom from offense, then we're back to you wanting to make it illegal in the US to be mean.
You seem to think that's different from being offensive, but I can't see it. Either the wrongness of the action is contained in the action itself (malice) or in the results of the action (hurting hurting other people's feelings). Which is it?
Malice, obviously. All my banging on about intention should have told you that.
[ 22. September 2012, 16:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
So you want Americans to ban being mean? You keep denying that, but you haven't explained the difference.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
By way of double posting, what I was hoping you could possibly do is explain why hurting people's feelings (or causing offense, whatever) ought to be illegal. Why is it worth limiting the speech of American citizens?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
By way of double posting, what I was hoping you could possibly do is explain why hurting people's feelings (or causing offense, whatever) ought to be illegal. Why is it worth limiting the speech of American citizens?
Islam offends me. Should it be banned? Is that what someone is actually suggesting?
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
So far as I can tell, Orfeo feels that it should be illegal to intentionally offend people, which isn't quite the same thing as just happening to offend. What he hasn't explained (unless I missed it) was why his right to not have his feelings hurt trumps my right to say whatever I like.
[ 22. September 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So far as I can tell, Orfeo feels that it should be illegal to intentionally offend people, which isn't quite the same thing as just happening to offend. What he hasn't explained (unless I missed it) was why his right to not have his feelings hurt trumps my right to say whatever I like.
Islam intentionally offends me. If the practitioners say they don't, then, well, it's bad enough they intentionally offend me, but then they stand there and deny it. In short, I wanna sue.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So far as I can tell, Orfeo feels that it should be illegal to intentionally offend people, which isn't quite the same thing as just happening to offend. What he hasn't explained (unless I missed it) was why his right to not have his feelings hurt trumps my right to say whatever I like.
To go back to Tom Clune's example: If you think that someone's right to speak in such a way as to attempt to start a war between Israel and Egypt comes up trumps, then you have a fascinating sense of priorities.
Free speech no matter what the intended results. That's what you're asking me to argue against. I'd like to see you argue FOR it.
[ 23. September 2012, 00:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'd like to see you argue FOR it.
I'd say freedom of speech is more self evidently a right than your freedom from offense.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So far as I can tell, Orfeo feels that it should be illegal to intentionally offend people, which isn't quite the same thing as just happening to offend. What he hasn't explained (unless I missed it) was why his right to not have his feelings hurt trumps my right to say whatever I like.
Islam intentionally offends me. If the practitioners say they don't, then, well, it's bad enough they intentionally offend me, but then they stand there and deny it. In short, I wanna sue.
Good luck convincing a judge. You're free to try, of course. Given that Islam was around centuries before modern American culture existed, never mind how many centuries before you were born, I'm fascinated to know exactly how you're going to satisfy your evidential burden.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I'd like to see you argue FOR it.
I'd say freedom of speech is more self evidently a right than your freedom from offense.
And again, I do NOT have a "freedom from offense". I have limits on the right of freedom of speech. In precisely the same way that it is already limited in a number of areas. Whether it's defamation law or preventing propogation of pedophilia.
So quit suggesting I'm advocating a right. I'm not. I'm suggesting that your right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and in fact it ALREADY isn't absolute no matter how much the grand rhetoric used in your country has conned you into thinking it is.
[ 23. September 2012, 00:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The rights of others are precisely where our freedoms end. So if there is no freedom from offense, then offending people cannot be a limitation on free speech.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
