Cartoons and religion

Originally Posted by northwind

Someone walks up to you in a bar and starts calling your girlfriend abusive names. Would you stop him? Would you consider yourself within your rights?

Now here you're deliberately creating a scenario that isn't about freedom of speech it's about a one-on-one situation that involves personal attack rather than objective and considered expression.


.

[northwind]

So now you're limiting freedom of speech to only cover objective and considered expression? A minute ago you were saying freedom of speech is absolute, oir it's not freedom of speech. Now you're saying that freedom of speech doesn't extend to what you'd consider a personal (verbal) attack.

But where do you draw that line? is an editorial in a newspaper calling for a Liberal Democrat leadership candidate to step our of the rubbing because he's gay not a personal attack, and therefore not protected by freedom of speech?

Why can a personal attack not also be objective and considered expression? Lets go back to Squirrel and his girlfriend in the pub. Sorry about this Squirrel!

Example B, Squirrel's girlfriend's ex-boyfriend turns up in the pub. She cheated on him with Squirrel, and some other guys. And a dog. On video. He begins an unpleasant and personal attack based on her sexual mores and lack of moral fibre. Would Squirrel still not feel within his rights to stop him, even though it's an objective, considered and accurate opinion he's expressing?

Originally Posted by northwind

So now you're limiting freedom of speech to only cover objective and considered expression? A minute ago you were saying freedom of speech is absolute, oir it's not freedom of speech. Now you're saying that freedom of speech doesn't extend to what you'd consider a personal (verbal) attack.

You see you've completely misinterpreted and twisted what I said (and you know very well you have ). You're now just playing with semantics really.

Why can a personal attack not also be objective and considered expression? Lets go back to Squirrel and his girlfriend in the pub. Sorry about this Squirrel!

Because if it's personal it's subjective, and certainly everyone's entitled to their own opinion - which is kind of the point here.

Example B, Squirrel's girlfriend's ex-boyfriend turns up in the pub. She cheated on him with Squirrel, and some other guys. And a dog. On video. He begins an unpleasant and personal attack based on her sexual mores and lack of moral fibre. Would Squirrel still not feel within his rights to stop him, even though it's an objective, considered and accurate opinion he's expressing?

I'm starting to feel sorry for Squirrel

Everyone is entitled to argue naturally, providing it doesn't fall foul of the law and doesn't invollve physical abuse. My advice to Squirrel is (after one last night ) dump his GF and go out for a beer to commiserate with the erstwhile boyfriend .

We can debate this forever more, and I take my lid off to you for always playing an excellent devil's advocate, but I've said my piece (more or less) and don't see anything new coming to the table - though surprise me .


.

[northwind]

Hmm? No, I've nothing new to bring to the table, I'm just knocking down everything everyone else brings Mainly because I don't have the answers, and I don't think anyone else does either. It always comes down to degrees- at what point is the harm caused by restricting free speech less than the damage caused by allowing it. And who's qualified to do that? Not me.

Here's something new. I think that at the present stage in human evolution (and human social evolution), free speech is something that not everyone can be trusted with. I'm completely in favour of small government, free speech, no thought crimes, trust in the people, letting people take responsibility for their own actions, right up until it runs into the, what, 1/10? 1/50 for whom those laws and restrictions are necessary, as they lack the integrity or ability to act in ways that won't damage other peope. So unfortunately, for the time being I think we're stuck with blanket restrictions that I might personally hate and wish we could live without, because the damage of losing them would be greater.

It's sort of like democracy. Democracy's rubbish, it's mob rule rubberstamped with legitimacy, and puts too much power in the hands of the majorities, marginalising other groups. But it's the best we've got, so I've got to be in favour of it. (though PR would be a nice step in the right direction)

Originally Posted by northwind

So unfortunately, for the time being I think we're stuck with blanket restrictions that I might personally hate and wish we could live without, because the damage of losing them would be greater.

Your earlier list was an excellent illustration of how very different specific scenarios where freedom of speach is directly harmful to others can be, and why each of them requires a specific law.

It also shows that blanket restrictions like the government tried to pass last week are utterly inappropriate, and why, thankfully, never made it through parlament..

Originally Posted by northwind

It's sort of like democracy. Democracy's rubbish, it's mob rule rubberstamped with legitimacy, and puts too much power in the hands of the majorities, marginalising other groups. But it's the best we've got, so I've got to be in favour of it. (though PR would be a nice step in the right direction)

The problem with democracy these days is people have completely lost sight of its original purpose. It was never brought about to give the people a voice on everything (as that's mob rule as you rightly point out) - it was brought about to remove governments who became tyranical and oppressive. Now we've actualy got an oppressive government, noone seems to want to vote them out

As far as I can see all Northwind and I are trying to argue is that there are limits to free speech... it is not an absolute and it's not always easy to see where ther line should be drawn.

In the example we were discussing (a few pages ago ) the cartoon of Mohammed - I'm not sure whether it was okay to publish it or not - interestingly the press in this country has not published it, possibly because of fear of repercussions (which is sad) or because they they thought it was needlessly provocative (probably good).

Originally Posted by northwind

(though PR would be a nice step in the right direction)

Thank you Northwind. I was waiting for someone to say this. Democracy without Proportional Representation is... basically not democracy. Its Gambling... hedging your bets...

Side track: I saw an ad in the UK, Lib Dem ad back in the day, and they were talking about PR. And, the ad went like this:
"Some people say Oh, PR is just too complicated to bring in here, and I say to them, even Ireland can manage it. It cant be that complicated now can it?"

Oooh. I was torn. I was thinking Yay PR. Yay Lib Dem for pushing it. But... you cheeky backstards, whadaya mean even Ireland.
Not sure if I like you any more

Originally Posted by philipMac

Thank you Northwind. I was waiting for someone to say this. Democracy without Proportional Representation is... basically not democracy. Its Gambling... hedging your bets...

This is something I completely disagree with. The idea that giving the majority of people, (of whom a most are totaly and utterly politicaly ignorant) a say over everything seems completely insane to me.

We need a strong government that doesnt bow to popularist sentiment, and actualy does whats best for our long term interests. Banning things, trying to control us to the nth degree to appease illiberal idiots in the short term is something I find deploreable.

I do agree there is a line, and it's been crossed.

Originally Posted by Steve W

In the example we were discussing (a few pages ago ) the cartoon of Mohammed - I'm not sure whether it was okay to publish it or not - interestingly the press in this country has not published it, possibly because of fear of repercussions (which is sad) or because they they thought it was needlessly provocative (probably good).

What you've just said here is very important. Just because you can say or do something, doesnt necessarily mean you should

Of couse, the government expects us to be happy to give them power and responsibility, but doesnt think the people should have any.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

This is something I completely disagree with. The idea that giving the majority of people, (of whom a most are totaly and utterly politicaly ignorant) a say over everything seems completely insane to me.

This is the defn of Democracy, no? Giving ignorant people a say over everything? Democracy is the problem here, not PR.
At least when you vote in a PR system you vote for the person you want to vote for, and not against the person you want to lose, and for the person you think is the lesser of two evils...

Mr Squirrel my friend... I dont totally agree with everything you say, but I really like that you are saying it, and backing up what you are saying, and fighting your corner. Nothing worse than people who just sheep along, voting for x because they think he is a nice dude or a MANS man, or a woman, or its what their old man voted, or whatever.

I am starting to think... if you have no idea why you are voting for x, just dont bother. Just dont even waste your time. If you dont have a clue, stay at home amigo.

Or should I not think that

Originally Posted by philipMac

This is the defn of Democracy, no? Giving ignorant people a say over everything? Democracy is the problem here, not PR.
At least when you vote in a PR system you vote for the person you want to vote for, and not against the person you want to lose, and for the person you think is the lesser of two evils...

Yeah that's what democracy is. Certainly in its truest form everyone would get their say on everything. I just dont think this was ever the intention of democracy when it was invisaged. People simply couldnt be expected to have the time or inclination to fully delve into policy decisions to make an objective choice, even if they did understand all the implications.

PR might be a step towards true democracy, as it gives minority groups a say who might otherwise not get one. However, minority political groups are often at best single interest groups with no regard for any policies irrelevent to the persuit of their own agenda - and at worst will go to dangerous extremes to achieve it.

Indeed, it was though a PR system that the Nazis seized power.

Originally Posted by philipMac

I am starting to think... if you have no idea why you are voting for x, just dont bother. Just dont even waste your time. If you dont have a clue, stay at home amigo.

Or should I not think that

Governments love voter apathy. They think it means if people arent unhappy enough to vote against them, they must be doing an ok job. So I always think if you're not sure who to vote for, just vote for the opposition