Topic: Freedom of speech

[GreatEx]

No, it doesn't. The response is a choice.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply I condoned beating someone up who holds up Mohammed cartoons outside a mosque. And yes, they have a choice - turn the other cheek, or react with anger and perhaps violence. But the fact is, you are forced to react in one way or another, whereas in the case of invading the press office it is you who have initiated the confrontation and therefore have no mitigating factors to lean on.

[MichaelA]

If he doesn't have an agenda then what's the point of him being pope?

This has just caused much hilarity in my house.

[Card Cheat]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/uk-france-shooting-pope-idUKKBN0KO16Q20150115?rpc=401

After Paris attacks, Pope speaks out against insulting religions

Horrendous comments.

[The North Bank]

If he doesn't have an agenda then what's the point of him being pope? Christian teaching is that you turn the other cheek not smack someone in the mouth. The message is quite clear - defend religion, any religion, above all else.

I agree with you that the example he used was.....unfortunate. But it seems to me that he was trying to be lighthearted and humorous with his replies...which again in the circumstances, is unfortunate. But I wouldn't hammer him for it, it would be an extreme reaction. Too much extremism in the world already.

[Ray K]

Yup. If some Muslim bloke had rocked up to Charlie Hebdo's offices and sat down outside for an hour or two with a sign saying what he thought of their cartoons, I'd have a lot of respect for him. Civilised, grown up disagreement.

[KiNki]

The highest form of freedom of speech is knowing that you can offend anyone you want, and not doing it, exercising your right not to offend when you know you can. That is complete freedom. 

Freedom eh.

[Rob Dylan]

I think what the Pope has said demonstrates the difference between being disrespectful on a personal level, to a particular person, and being disrespectful in a more general way, in the media, in the name of satire. If a person deliberately insults you or makes offensive comments about your family, or something similar that is very important to you (for example, making a joke about Hillsborough), they would expect a hostile response. Obviously responding violently would be against the law and should be, but being deliberately offensive on a personal level without provocation is, quite rightly, frowned upon in our society.

I also think there is a risk that encouraging a culture of 'disrespect' can just give the green light to people who are ignorant or motivated by hate to be as offensive as they like, and just claim that it's 'satire'. When we talk about the  idea of being 'disrespectful' in relation to satire, what we really mean is being irreverent - but I think some people will just use it as an excuse to be ignorant, and deliberately offensive - but not to make a satirical point, just out of hatred.

At school my daughter is taught about other religions and their beliefs / customs, I expect her to grow up respecting those in the sense that she doesn't ridicule or look down on them, just out of basic human decency. It doesn't mean she believes in them herself, and when she's old enough she'll be free to analyse and criticise them if she wants to.

[electricghost]

 
Charles Miller
‏@FreemanToday
Only the childishly insecure think violence is called for when offended

[Alan_X]

Completely agree. The way I see it. The highest form of freedom of speech is knowing that you can offend anyone you want, and not doing it, exercising your right not to offend when you know you can. That is complete freedom.  Ones that take up the right to offend are not actually free. They are bound to a stereotype that they cant shake off.
Maybe its too soon to put forward alternative point of views because emotions are running high, understandably so, because of the horrific murders of people who chose to exercise their legal right to offend for a living.

The analogy is all wrong because they aren't insulting their friends. They aren't offending just for the sake of offending, they are making political comment and calling corrupt people to account. They are a satirical magazine targeting politicians and religious extremists and the nature of satire is that you have to understand the context. I've seen a lot of comments, especially about the
Boko Haram cartoon that completely missed the point because they had no understanding of french politics or french satire. Or political cartoons in general. This shocking image by James GIlray was offensive to a lot of powerful Englishman in the eighteenth century:

The man is holding down a black man in a vat of boiling sugar water and saying: "Blast your black eyes! What you can't work because you're not well? .. but I'll give you a warm bath to cure your ague, and a curry-combing afterwards to put some spunk into you...'



On the wall in the background are body parts from slaves and the bodies of rats...

Its a horrible image and out of context could be horribly misunderstood. The context was that Gilray supported Wilberforce's anti-slavery campaign and the cartoon was a response to  pro-slavers claiming that the barbarities described by Wilberforce were exaggerated. The essential part is what the man says - the cartoon is not just saying that the act depicted is horrible, but is satirising the attitudes of the pro-slavery campaign.

In the same way, the Boko Haram cartoon is satirising the attitudes of the far-right. It's not saying: 'this is what I think...' it's saying this is what they think...

I agree with you that the example he used was.....unfortunate. But it seems to me that he was trying to be lighthearted and humorous with his replies...which again in the circumstances, is unfortunate. But I wouldn't hammer him for it, it would be an extreme reaction. Too much extremism in the world already.

So it's excusable to use humour to make a point even though it's clearly going to be offensive to the friends and families of the murdered cartoonists?

[Yorkykopite]

I have found that teasing people about their religious beliefs does not make them happy. Or else I'm not very good at it.

That's good.

[Ken-Obi]

So it's excusable to use humour to make a point even though it's clearly going to be offensive to the friends and families of the murdered cartoonists?

Isn't that freedom of speech as per trumpeted here?

[outlaw_nas]

There's no such thing as freedom of speech

[TepidT2O]

There's no such thing as freedom of speech

And.....

[jooneyisdagod]

I think its a bit unfair on some people to label it as this.

If I purposely rock up to Old Trafford with a Munich banner and people kick the crap out of me and I'm left for dead how much actual sympathy would there be for my free speech?

There is an argument for respect in all of this.

If went spent all my time lampooning my Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist friends, poking fun at them and demeaning them etc then I would have no friends and would lead a very lonely and sad life.

I'm a little disappointed that people are so narrow minded to label everyone who argues for respect as secretively supporting the murder of the innocent cartoonists.

It's highly provocative but no you shouldn't be beaten up and left for dead for that either and if you were, rest assured I would think the people that hit you were unjustified and it applies the other way around as well with people that say sing stuff like 96 is not enough. Also, either of those examples could be construed as hate speech based on how and what was exactly said which can be illegal.

Secondly, you are comparing holding up banners that mock the death of humans that was witnessed, and recorded with a collection of ideas. One is a historical event and the other an idea. Criticisms of either are not comparable.

[Alan_X]

There's no such thing as freedom of speech

Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. Any more?

[L666KOP]

Using Satire as a vehicle to express freedom of speech makes me a little uneasy I must admit.

Often what is depicted in a 'humourous' and sometimes 'ironic' manner would see you in trouble if it were part of a normal conversation.

Then there's the angle that is the illustrator using the cartoon to push his own thoughts without fear of retribution, or merely poking fun at the 'situation' from an outsiders perspective ?

As for freedom of speech ? In my world you should be allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it's your personal view after having thought about what you say. If you're saying something that is going to break the law, then the punishment should reflect the severity of your words.

I'm of the opinion that if someone makes a conscious decision to 'believe/follow' a certain set of guidelines then a gentle teasing is fine.

However, doing so when an individual has no choice, is out of order.

[Yorkykopite]

Then there's the angle that is the illustrator using the cartoon to push his own thoughts without fear of retribution,

It's better that they have fear of retribution?

[L666KOP]

It's better that they have fear of retribution?

It's a massive disprovable grey area though isn't it ?

Like I said, satire often steps over the mark of what we consider acceptable, using the shield of 'humour/irony' to prevent retaliation/consequences.

I could do an illustration that depicts something that crosses the borderline, now how do you prove/disprove whether I'm poking fun at the situation, or agreeing with the message it's conveying ?

[Yorkykopite]

It's a massive disprovable grey area though isn't it ?

Not for me. Or (evidently) millions of others. I personally don't feel that cartoonists, or anyone else, should have "the fear of retribution" hanging over their heads every time they go to work. Of course in reality they do. Anyone who satirises Islam runs the risk of retribution. So you are wrong about that. The fear already exists. Perhaps you should admire their courage instead of complaining that they run no risks.

Like I said, satire often steps over the mark of what we consider acceptable, using the shield of 'humour/irony' to prevent retaliation/consequences.

"Often"? I'd say "almost always" because there's nearly always someone who objects every time a satirist goes to work. They'd be shit satirists if this wasn't so. And how you think that a satirist's humour prevents any consequences in the week that several were gunned down in Paris I don't know.

I could do an illustration that depicts something that crosses the borderline, now how do you prove/disprove whether I'm poking fun at the situation, or agreeing with the message it's conveying ?

One doesn't need to. Or are you suggesting we should have a bench of wise men who are appointed to work out the exact nature of jokes for the rest of us? 

[Dr. Beaker]

Taking the piss out of someone because of their genuinely held religious beliefs is allowed, but looked down on by most reasonable people. It is allowed because generally speaking it reflects badly upon the piss-taker himself, even if the piss-takee does have an illogical viewpoint (ie. they should be pitied really).

Taking the piss out of sadistic moronic thugs who are supposedly trying to take some moral high ground should be compulsory for all. By highlighting the mockery they are making of the religion that they are trying to hijack, maximum pressure is being applied to the normal followers of said religion to put their house in order.

[L666KOP]

Not for me. Or (evidently) millions of others. I personally don't feel that cartoonists, or anyone else, should have "the fear of retribution" hanging over their heads every time they go to work. Of course in reality they do. Anyone who satirises Islam runs the risk of retribution. So you are wrong about that. The fear already exists. Perhaps you should admire their courage instead of complaining that they run no risks.

"Often"? I'd say "almost always" because there's nearly always someone who objects every time a satirist goes to work. They'd be shit satirists if this wasn't so. And how you think that a satirist's humour prevents any consequences in the week that several were gunned down in Paris I don't know.


One doesn't need to. Or are you suggesting we should have a bench of wise men who are appointed to work out the exact nature of jokes for the rest of us?

I didn't say that, as well you know.

If fact you seem to have lots of words in my mouth, I was expressing an opinion, and you've tried to put words in my mouth and suggest I'm saying one thing when actually I'm saying the opposite.

Ironic given the thread we're in, or are you auditioning for a role of Satirist ?

The biggest problem with expressing thought provoking humour is that everyone it's aimed at will have a different line in the sand. Who's to say which person is right ?

If I do a satirical illustration using Scousers in their stereotypical manner as petty thieves wearing shell suits and having curly hair to 10 people, 9 of them laugh but 1 takes offence to it and punches me in the mouth then have I been 'racist' or offensive ?

To 9 people, no. But I obviously pissed off the person that gave me a dig.

Now in telling that joke, am I using Satire to mock the notion that all 'Scousers are thieves' or driving home my own personal beliefs ?

Are we deciding amongst ourselves what each other must, or must not find funny, or thought provoking ?

Who are we to decide where our peers must draw their own personal line ? In doing just that we are going against the whole concept of free speech are we not ?

[Yorkykopite]

I didn't say that, as well you know.

You heavily implied it......

Then there's the angle that is the illustrator using the cartoon to push his own thoughts without fear of retribution,

[Dr. Beaker]

All humour depends upon someone's self-esteem taking a tumble.

[Ken-Obi]

If I do a satirical illustration using Scousers in their stereotypical manner as petty thieves wearing shell suits and having curly hair to 10 people, 9 of them laugh but 1 takes offence to it and punches me in the mouth then have I been 'racist' or offensive ?

To 9 people, no. But I obviously pissed off the person that gave me a dig.

Now in telling that joke, am I using Satire to mock the notion that all 'Scousers are thieves' or driving home my own personal beliefs ?

You forgot hubcaps.

[The North Bank]

The analogy is all wrong because they aren't insulting their friends. They aren't offending just for the sake of offending, they are making political comment and calling corrupt people to account. They are a satirical magazine targeting politicians and religious extremists and the nature of satire is that you have to understand the context. I've seen a lot of comments, especially about the
Boko Haram cartoon that completely missed the point because they had no understanding of french politics or french satire. Or political cartoons in general. This shocking image by James GIlray was offensive to a lot of powerful Englishman in the eighteenth century:

The man is holding down a black man in a vat of boiling sugar water and saying: "Blast your black eyes! What you can't work because you're not well? .. but I'll give you a warm bath to cure your ague, and a curry-combing afterwards to put some spunk into you...'



On the wall in the background are body parts from slaves and the bodies of rats...

Its a horrible image and out of context could be horribly misunderstood. The context was that Gilray supported Wilberforce's anti-slavery campaign and the cartoon was a response to  pro-slavers claiming that the barbarities described by Wilberforce were exaggerated. The essential part is what the man says - the cartoon is not just saying that the act depicted is horrible, but is satirising the attitudes of the pro-slavery campaign.

In the same way, the Boko Haram cartoon is satirising the attitudes of the far-right. It's not saying: 'this is what I think...' it's saying this is what they think...

So it's excusable to use humour to make a point even though it's clearly going to be offensive to the friends and families of the murdered cartoonists?

I'm not sure what political statement they are making when they have evidently offended every single muslim. Some are now too worried to admit they got offended for fear of being seen as sympathisers with the terrorists. As for the pope, surely you should be defending his right to use humour without worrying who he might offend. I think what he said was unintentional poor taste, but I am against all form of offending. My stance doesn't change depending on who is dishing it out. There are a lot of people in the world who lack the intellect to distinguish between humour, satire, political statements, and downright hatred, so their only response is anguish and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I am talking about peaceful people who live within the law. Not murderous scum who deserve no consideration.

[L666KOP]

You heavily implied it......

Not at all, I was asking a question.

Hence my grey area stance.

How can we prove it either way, we can't. There will be people that abuse it, and use satire as a means to convey there own personal beliefs and 'hide' behind the humour/irony part. We'd be silly to think otherwise, the key is to work out who's trying to portray the correct image, and who isn't.

[Card Cheat]

I'm not sure what political statement they are making when they have evidently offended every single muslim. Some are now too worried to admit they got offended for fear of being seen as sympathisers with the terrorists. As for the pope, surely you should be defending his right to use humour without worrying who he might offend. I think what he said was unintentional poor taste, but I am against all form of offending. My stance doesn't change depending on who is dishing it out. There are a lot of people in the world who lack the intellect to distinguish between humour, satire, political statements, and downright hatred, so their only response is anguish and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I am talking about peaceful people who live within the law. Not murderous scum who deserve no consideration.

When pretty much every single thing each of us does everyday is offensive to someone somewhere, what's left?

[Roger Federer]

Isn't that freedom of speech as per trumpeted here?

No one is saying that the Pope shouldn't be allowed to say it though, are they? And it's prefectly reasonable to find what he said both against the teaching of his religon (Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, I thought), and offensive to the dead cartoonists family and friends. Even to me they are, because in a roundabout way he's excusing these murderers and to an extent blaming the victims for what happened. Or how do you think the analogy he used is supposed to be understood?

[Alan_X]

Isn't that freedom of speech as per trumpeted here?

[GreatEx]

I'm not sure what political statement they are making when they have evidently offended every single muslim. Some are now too worried to admit they got offended for fear of being seen as sympathisers with the terrorists. As for the pope, surely you should be defending his right to use humour without worrying who he might offend. I think what he said was unintentional poor taste, but I am against all form of offending. My stance doesn't change depending on who is dishing it out. There are a lot of people in the world who lack the intellect to distinguish between humour, satire, political statements, and downright hatred, so their only response is anguish and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I am talking about peaceful people who live within the law. Not murderous scum who deserve no consideration.

Isn't public discourse dumbed-down enough already without eliminating all humour, satire and subtlety for the benefit of the lowest intellects? A sad day indeed if your point of view prevails.

[saoirse08]

I didn't say that, as well you know.

If fact you seem to have lots of words in my mouth, I was expressing an opinion, and you've tried to put words in my mouth and suggest I'm saying one thing when actually I'm saying the opposite.

Ironic given the thread we're in, or are you auditioning for a role of Satirist ?

The biggest problem with expressing thought provoking humour is that everyone it's aimed at will have a different line in the sand. Who's to say which person is right ?

If I do a satirical illustration using Scousers in their stereotypical manner as petty thieves wearing shell suits and having curly hair to 10 people, 9 of them laugh but 1 takes offence to it and punches me in the mouth then have I been 'racist' or offensive ?

To 9 people, no. But I obviously pissed off the person that gave me a dig.

Now in telling that joke, am I using Satire to mock the notion that all 'Scousers are thieves' or driving home my own personal beliefs ?

Are we deciding amongst ourselves what each other must, or must not find funny, or thought provoking ?

Who are we to decide where our peers must draw their own personal line ? In doing just that we are going against the whole concept of free speech are we not ?

We had a similar debate in the Stewart Lee thread when he used the Ukip's Paul Nuttal to take the piss out its immigration policy. Some RAWK scousers (and non-scousers too) were offended by a few
lines in that part of the act which took the piss out of Liverpool, and some - like myself - were less offended and thought that it connected well with the overall structure of the act, which was to mock and satirise generalisations
about immigrants. I admit Nuttal (and by association Liverpool) was an easy target because Frottage is a run of the mill privelaged southerner. Had Nuttal been from Manchester or Newcastle, then I suppose Lee would
have mocked certain aspects of those cities to make his point. I've seen Lee a couple of times in Liverpool and he said thing which many could find offensive but he somehow makes work in his act.

Anyway, the debate starts on this page and continues on for a couple of pages:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=239321.440

[GreatEx]

As for freedom of speech ? In my world you should be allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it's your personal view after having thought about what you say.

That's just a personal preference, it doesn't serve as any kind of bounday for the limits of free speech. Everyone, almost every day, says or writes something stupid, impulsive, derivative, ill thought-out, insensitive, etc. It's all part of being human and no sane person would try to repress it.

[jooneyisdagod]

This is what happens when you restrict freedoms especially due to that most trivial of reasons i.e. causing offence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30808747

[L666KOP]

That's just a personal preference, it doesn't serve as any kind of bounday for the limits of free speech. Everyone, almost every day, says or writes something stupid, impulsive, derivative, ill thought-out, insensitive, etc. It's all part of being human and no sane person would try to repress it.

And that is why I said what I said.

Those that set out to offend aren't worth listening to anyway, and like most on here wouldn't give such a person the time of day.

However, if you genuinely believe what you say, and are in full possession of the facts that are needed to make a controlled decision then it's your right to do so within the boundaries of the law.

Where it becomes difficult to interpret is that if you asked 20 people where their own personal boundary lay, you'd get 20 different answers no doubt. We all have a tolerance level, and for some it's well within what the law has decided is ok.

One of my points was how do we know that those asking the questions through the power of satire are doing so to pique the interest of those they illustrate and spark a reasonable debate, or merely doing so for their own ends 'politically' and fuelling their own agenda.

Everyone interprets things differently, and that's the shades of grey. I doubt you'd ever get a group of people to 100% agree, especially given the nature of subjects satirists generally illustrate about.

[Alan_X]

I'm not sure what political statement they are making when they have evidently offended every single muslim. Some are now too worried to admit they got offended for fear of being seen as sympathisers with the terrorists.

The political statement they are making with the latest cartoon is that Islamic extremism and murder has no place in a secular state like France. They are also making the point that being offended by a cartoon is an irrational idea. And by making Mohammed weep and saying all is forgiven they are also highlighting the dreadful irony that they were murdered for offending what people claim is a tolerant and peaceful religion.

As for offending 'every single muslim' that's a big claim and one that I'd like to see substantiated. And even if it was all 1.8 billion muslims who were offended does that excuse the murder of 17 people in any way shape or form?

Because as the events in Belgium show the offence is not just the drawing of cartoons. That's just one part of it. For Islamic extremists the principal offence is the existence of western values. Boko Haram literally means that western education is a sin. IS ultimate aim isn't to stop a bunch of French cartoonists drawing cartoons of Mohammed, it's the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate with control over and responsibility for all the World's muslims. I think moderate muslims have more to be worried about from the extremists in their own religion than the west.

As for the pope, surely you should be defending his right to use humour without worrying who he might offend. I think what he said was unintentional poor taste, but I am against all form of offending. My stance doesn't change depending on who is dishing it out.

I was pointing out the irony of you excusing his use of humour to make a point, despite it being pretty offensive. Exactly what you have condemned Charlie Hebdo for.

There are a lot of people in the world who lack the intellect to distinguish between humour, satire, political statements, and downright hatred, so their only response is anguish and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

So we should all live our lives to suit the ignorant and the stupid? There are religious fundamentalists of all kinds that find homosexuality, evolution, women's rights, atheism and many other things deeply offensive and troubling. Should we abandon science? Should we put women back into the kitchen and re-criminalise homosexuality?

I am talking about peaceful people who live within the law. Not murderous scum who deserve no consideration.

Those who died were peaceful people who lived within the law.

[The North Bank]

I do think certain ground rules are needed. Imagine Rawk without moderators....
actually.....    ..

In all seriousness, can you rely on the law of the land to draw the line . When the government cant get anything right.
Even Charlie Hebdo said that they can do what they want as long as they are within the law, but then inside their magazine they discredited the same politicians who make those laws...Its a tough one.

[Yorkykopite]

To those Fundy Muslims who are now saying "Our Prophet would never need to forgive the cartoonists" it's worth pointing out that the latest Charlie Hebdo front cover is cleverly ambiguous. It's equally possible to read Mo's "All is Forgiven" as directed at the Islamist terrorists and therefore a vindication of the murder of the cartoonists, coppers and Jews. Maybe the Fundies would be happier with that interpretation.

[Alan_X]

And that is why I said what I said.

Those that set out to offend aren't worth listening to anyway, and like most on here wouldn't give such a person the time of day.

However, if you genuinely believe what you say, and are in full possession of the facts that are needed to make a controlled decision then it's your right to do so within the boundaries of the law.

Where it becomes difficult to interpret is that if you asked 20 people where their own personal boundary lay, you'd get 20 different answers no doubt. We all have a tolerance level, and for some it's well within what the law has decided is ok.

One of my points was how do we know that those asking the questions through the power of satire are doing so to pique the interest of those they illustrate and spark a reasonable debate, or merely doing so for their own ends 'politically' and fuelling their own agenda.

Everyone interprets things differently, and that's the shades of grey. I doubt you'd ever get a group of people to 100% agree, especially given the nature of subjects satirists generally illustrate about.

Sorry but your narrow definition of what's acceptable throws thousands of years of political and intellectual writing into the dustbin. It would abandon one of the only effective weapons the weak have against the powerful and the intolerant.

[L666KOP]

Sorry but your narrow definition of what's acceptable throws thousands of years of political and intellectual writing into the dustbin. It would abandon one of the only effective weapons the weak have against the powerful and the intolerant.

I don't get what you mean ?

[oldfordie]

That's just a personal preference, it doesn't serve as any kind of bounday for the limits of free speech. Everyone, almost every day, says or writes something stupid, impulsive, derivative, ill thought-out, insensitive, etc. It's all part of being human and no sane person would try to repress it.

So nobody should be held accountable for what they say on the internet or twitter.
To be honest i dont think stupidity or lack of consideration for what you are saying is any excuse. if the person is impulsive then they should stay off the web.
People may get there facts wrong i accept that and nothing wrong with someone just admitting it when they are corrected but that's completely different from a person writing whatever they wish without any thought or consideration.