In Defense of Insulting People and Ideas...

[Valjean]

Should we wrap ourselves in cotton-wool, plug our ears and blinker our eyes, so we will never be disturbed by unfamiliar sights, sounds or ideas?

We grow through adversity. We learn to think as our opinions are challenged.

 

[Quintessence]

I suspect that if more of us actually did "think before we acted" the whole world would now being going out of their way to insult and ridicule the terrorists, as that seems to be a fairly effective way of reducing someone's prestige and power.

Quite possibly. Generally, I'd observe that what people raise a fuss about is related to their values or how personally it affects them. Some are not interested in raising a fuss, or prefer to mind their own business. Raising a fuss can be an effective weapon, but it also has a tendency to further polarize peoples. As wise as it is to consider the consequences of (in)action, it is also wise to recognize we won't ever know what those are in full until the fates dish out their lot.

 

[oldbadger]

Basically, free speech is allowed until it insults me.

Hi.....
Many a true word was said..... in jest.

But....... LewisnotMiller introduced 'the comedian' into a similar thread and stopped me dead in my tracks.
Comedians can 'nearly' get away with laughing at mostly any subject-matter. What they can do should surely be allowed in, say, satirical-mags.

It's Government schizophrenic hypocrisy that annoys me so, as it ducks and dives, and jumps either side of the line that it has already drawn in the sand.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Comedians can 'nearly' get away with laughing at mostly any subject-matter

Cartoonists are comedians too.

 

[oldbadger]

Cartoonists are comedians too.

..... In that post I wrote:-
Comedians can 'nearly' get away with laughing at mostly any subject-matter. What they can do should surely be allowed in, say, satirical-mags.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Comedians can 'nearly' get away with laughing at mostly any subject-matter. What they can do should surely be allowed in, say, satirical-mags.

I guess that defining "nearly" is the tricky bit.

 

[ChristineES]

It's one of those things: People are incredibly thin-skinned nowadays as well as being self-absorbed, which means they are only sensitive to what is about them and not about others. I hear more apologies nowadays than I ever heard in my life.
Don't get me wrong, I am a very sensitive person myself. But there is a line to be drawn. We all need to be more thick-skinned and we need to quit taking everything so personally (I add myself to that list, of course). People are going to say what they say: They would still say things even if our right to free speech was tightened.
If insults were a crime, 99.9% of people, if not 100%, would be criminals. We all do it and it is usually inadvertantly.

 

[bobhikes]

After thinking about it. I believe it is an issue of public vs private. Free speech is a public thing. In the privacy of my home or my event you have to abide by my rules or I can remove you from the event or home.

That being said I think there should be something in the law that makes it illegal to use a private event to exercise you right to free speech. For example the baptist group that sets up on public property as close as possible to a funeral to use the funeral to further there slander about gays. Even though they are on public property they are still using a private event and it should be illegal.

It seems the internet has blurred the lines of public and private. Why do the radical Muslims even know about the cartoon. I can't believe that magazine is on the Muslim read list. It only sold 60,000 copies and I haven't even seen the cartoon and I live in a free country. Now if it was published in there country or distributed in a mosque then they have a point. Finding it on the internet means your looking for trouble.

 

[Riverwolf]

Such provocation can also contribute to undermining the authority and power of dangerous people. How powerful do you think Pat Robertson would be if he were not daily provoked, insulted, and made fun of? Between your butt and his whip lies a lot of insults, in my opinion, Riverwolf.

I specifically said "dangerous" people for a reason. I'm not really worried about ol' Patty organizing a militia and shooting up people.

Not all techniques for undermining overpowered people are universally applicable. Once the situation changes, more appropriate techniques should be used.

 

[Sunstone]

I specifically said "dangerous" people for a reason. I'm not really worried about ol' Patty organizing a militia and shooting up people.

Not all techniques for undermining overpowered people are universally applicable. Once the situation changes, more appropriate techniques should be used.

I'm not clear on why you think humor and ridicule are inappropriate? What sort of things must change in a situation for them to become inappropriate?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not clear on why you think humor and ridicule are inappropriate? What sort of things must change in a situation for them to become inappropriate?

When violent retaliation becomes a very real possibility. You don't put out fires by throwing oil on them.

 

[Sunstone]

When violent retaliation becomes a very real possibility. You don't put out fires by throwing oil on them.

I think we've reached an impasse. I completely disagree with you there and you seem to do the same with me. So it would be fruitless to discuss this further.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think we've reached an impasse. I completely disagree with you there and you seem to do the same with me. So it would be fruitless to discuss this further.

Very well. Agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

When violent retaliation becomes a very real possibility. You don't put out fires by throwing oil on them.

That is the reality. We face the choices of which battles we fight, & which we try to legislate away (eg, threatening speech). To publish cartoons which offend Muslims (& others) is worth the risk because the alternative is to send the message that terrorism can quiet any message.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It seems to me that censorship is one of the most common and dangerous ways in which governments and other institutions repress humans. It is dangerous not only because it can prevent people from finding out the truth, but also because freedom of speech and press are cornerstone freedoms: Other freedoms are meaningless without them. For instance, freedom of religion, without freedom of speech, is virtually a hollow and meaningless farce.

So far as I can see, one of the key ways in which anti-social politicians, pundits, and preachers attack freedom of speech is to say it is justified when someone's speech offends or insults others.

As it happens, that's pure BS.

It's BS because, among other reasons, there will always be someone who is insulted by anyone or anything that disagrees with him or her. Often enough, that person will not say, "I am insulted because you have told me something I disagree with." They will lie and say instead, "You said something just to insult me."

Again, it is BS to attack free speech on the basis of whether or not it insults anyone because we are a species that all too often finds the truth insulting. In fact, though it is common to claim to be insulted by lies, we tend to be insulted at least as often by truths. Thus to attack free speech on the basis of whether it insults people is, in effect, to promote the suppression of the truth.

For those and other reasons, we should drop this nonsense about free speech ending where insults begin. That is so childish and thin-skinned. A free humanity is not possible with such views.

Slighty strained comments considering they come from a staff member who controls what you can or cannot say

 

[Robert.Evans]

I will insult religious people with the truth any time I want to do so.

Tom

With your idea of truth no doubt

 

[Robert.Evans]

I consider it incredibly short-sighted and immature to deliberately provoke dangerous people, particularly when the lives of others are on the line.

I couldn't agree more

 

[Sunstone]

Slighty strained comments considering they come from a staff member who controls what you can or cannot say

Please point out where I argued for unlimited free speech or against the rights of a privately owned forum to impose it's own limits on speech.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I so agree with the OP.

People need to be capable of expressing how inclined they are to accept and respect other people and ideas. And that requires the option of being insulting.

I disagree. It is fine to say that you disagree, but not to insult. Perhaps you should define what you mean as an insult, considering you likewise are part of the moderation team that tells us what we can and cannot say. And if you don't I am goiing to insult you

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well said. I'm not gay myself, but I feel the religious homophobia we see on this forum and elsewhere is both insulting and personal.

But also relevant and important. But you don't believe in God Spiney, and this is a religious forum, not a gay forum. If it was , I would agree with you.
wahtdoya think?