Hard News: How much speech does it take?
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
way to engage with the topic
Apologies for my tone. I'm too busy to relitigate the last few millenia today.
-
merc, in reply to
Yep, Lorca springs to mind.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I think you mean “extending my personal definition of harm”. The idea that vulnerable groups can suffer harm isn’t exactly novel.
Not all speech has the same reach, and not all responses are heard remotely as well as the original claim.
Can you really not grasp that speeches that, say, defames an ethnic minority might have significant, even disastrous implications for that minority?
Of course I can grasp that. All I'm asking, which no-one has bothered to address, is where is the line?
I've even offered a specific example. Robinson's picture: valid free speech or not ok?
And I am explicitly not meaning my 'personal definition' of harm. I'm specifically talking about the definition of harm that forms the basis for legislative restrictions on freedom of speech. How hard is that to grasp?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
No one, to my knowledge, has ever set out at night to injure or kill any anarchist painter they can find.
The painter Max Beckmann left Germany and never returned for a reason. That very reason in fact.
-
Here is a swift attempt to briefly state a bit of how this thing looks to me. Islam, to put it bluntly, is the religion of (mobilized) lastness. It is the religion, in other words, of those arriving upon a scene already fully-formed, and its conception of things is thus flooded with the "justified"resentment-of the-excluded from the beginning.. The essentially Christian scenic-content that the Q'ran must draw upon, is therefore proclaimed as "uncreated", the 'true take' on something forever continuing to eclipse what Muslims must now believe is their ontological priority. Such a book in its very structure is hardly subject to the quite endless 'deviation by interpretation' that the Bible, as engine of ever-evolving ethical conceptions, quite obviously remains. If you simply eliminate any consideration of same from the contemplation of Islam, then yr destined methinks for an epic fail.. I trust Mr Kracklite has enjoyed my syntactic entanglements..
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
When I am dictator of the Known Universes, all people shall learn their histories.
Oh, and in all the hurly-burly I forgot to mention that this is one of the best lines I've ever read.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
What I don’t understand is why the cost of someone possibly being offended by something should outweigh the benefit of anyone else using that thing to create something new?
Nazism and Fascism aren't "something new". Italy and Germany have laws against the use of the language and symbols of those historical movements. They are imperfect laws, and they are powerless of course to prevent the rise of various neo-fascist and neo-nazis groups. But I'm still glad we have them. I'm glad it's actually against the law to wave a fascist or nazi flag, if only for the pain that they bring to victims' descendants and the remaining survivors.
-
merc, in reply to
And Norway's WW2 past, specifically the children of German occupying soldiers, estimated to be 40,000 in number.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
The painter Max Beckmann left Germany and never returned for a reason. That very reason in fact.
If Beckmann had actually been an anarchist (was he? I didn't think so), surely his persecution would be a subset of the persecution of all political radicals under Nazism. I think the point is that degenerate artists came in for special treatment because they were artists - which, it seems to me, serves to prove your point rather better.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I think the point is that degenerate artists came in for special treatment because they were artists
That was exactly my point. Artistic freedom – and freedom of speech more generally, for the same reasons and according to the same principles – is a precious thing that people have literally fought and died for.
It's not just an anarchist thing or an artistic thing. It's the very bedrock of a free, open, and tolerant society.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Artistic freedom – and freedom of speech more generally, for the same reasons and according to the same principles – is a precious thing that people have literally fought and died for.
The freedom to paint Guernica and the freedom to shout “kill all Jews” are two fundamentally different freedoms, it seems to me. I still don’t get the connection.
-
The good thing about trolled threads is that your scrolling finger gets well exercised.
-
son of little p, in reply to
oh wicked, most cowardly fellow! Such scrolling exercise might be most luminously compared to the scrambling paws of an nzlemming, may it not?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
The freedom to paint Guernica and the freedom to shout “kill all Jews” are two fundamentally different freedoms, it seems to me. I still don’t get the connection.
I am not equating the two. I am merely asking, once again, where and on what basis do we, as a society, draw the line?
(It's always all about drawing the lines.)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I am merely asking, once again, where and on what basis do we, as a society, draw the line?
We draw the line on the basis of whether a statement incites hatred, or not. Which is not always an easy determination to make, but it often is.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
We draw the line on the basis of whether a statement incites hatred, or not. Which is not always an easy determination to make, but it often is.
So how do we go about determining it?
A better comparison than Guernica might be Robinson's picture vs shouting 'kill all Jews'.
Or maybe patently silly stand-ins instead of real world examples.
-
son of little p, in reply to
may i ask you if you honestly believe that real hatred is something that, in our own present time, can simply be incited? (i take this to mean that before the statement, this 'hatred' could not be said to have, you know, 'existed')
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
could you link to robinson's picture? i can't find it online.
whether a statement is hate speech will always be subjective. but like all social interaction there has to be limits. without limits you have no society.
-
It's more of a dissection of a specific example than a universal definition, but feel free to copy and disseminate in whole or part as you please.
I understand, it's just that largely corelates with my general experience dealing with trolls; it's a great diagnostic, a simple troll pathology.
may i ask you if you honestly believe that real hatred is something that, in our own present time, can simply be incited?
Yes, people marginal or disenfranchised can readily be encouraged to blame someone else for their predicament. Fear and hatred of migrants in Australia is whipped up by shock jocks who claim "they'll take your jobs" etc. The Cronulla Riots were fueled by exactly this.
I'm going to regret engaging...
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
So how do we go about determining it?
We have laws that define such things and courts that interpret such laws.
-
first - just WHAT is the point of this?
"I’m going to regret engaging…"
-
Sacha, in reply to
people marginal or disenfranchised can readily be encouraged to blame someone else for their predicament
and beneficiary bashing by NZ politicians feeds off the same dynamic
-
and beneficiary bashing by NZ politicians feeds off the same dynamic
Indeed. At the risk of repeating something already said, or simply known, I think fear is a precusor of anger.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
i'd disagree, in my experience beneficiary-bashing is most usually done by non-marginalised and highly enfranchised people.
otherwise, yup.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
http://www.aasd.com.au/subscribers/list_all_works.cfm?concat=RobinsonPeter
Click on the camera symbol next to the title.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.