Charlie Hebdo and Italy earthquake drawing

[Deleted]

What exactly is confusing you? The purpose of free speech is to allow people to express unpopular opinions without violent reprisal or government censorship. Maybe try developing reading comprehension and don't quote that line out of context. Read the rest of the paragraph, which explains WHY this is important.

Free speech is a non-issue if no one wants to shut you up in the first place.

"Unpopular opinions" doesn't really mean "being offensive"

- - - Updated - - -

He's saying freedom of inquiry and expression are more valuable to society than hurt feelings, and should be protected from threats of violence and of censorship by the government.

No, he said the purpose of free speech is being able to offend without repercussions. I don't think that's the case at all.

[Deleted]

For obvious reasons, these are not the same people drawing the caricatures.

Also, do not pretend you never expressed a joke with black humour.

[downnola]

"Unpopular opinions" doesn't really mean "being offensive"

- - - Updated - - -



No, he said the purpose of free speech is being able to offend without repercussions. I don't think that's the case at all.

It's not free expression if you can be threatened into silence.

[Deleted]

It's not free expression if you can be threatened into silence.

Yeah that's a silly concept.

There are three offences that someone who uses "threatening, abusive or insulting" language in a public place may been deemed to have committed. (These offences can also be committed in a private place if what is said is audible outside. They also apply to similar behaviour and the display of similar posters, pictures or signs.) All three offences fall under the Public Order Act 1986.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rbal-abuse-law

[downnola]

Yeah that's a silly concept.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rbal-abuse-law

I'm not concerned on how certain laws regulate speech as most are full of shit. The topic at hand is a matter of the expression of ideas, satire or otherwise.

[Deleted]

I'm not concerned on how certain laws regulate speech as most are full of shit. The topic at hand is a matter of the expression of ideas, satire or otherwise.

The post you replied to was directed at a specific comment.
There are clear differences between how the topic of free speech is handled between us and Europe.

[manypillars]

"Unpopular opinions" doesn't really mean "being offensive"

Freedom of speech is meaningless if you're only going to protect speech you agree with. The white supremacist is allowed to tell me to leave 'Murica, the Dominionist is free to tell me about how under their theocracy I will be enslaved for my own good, and the fundamentalist Muslim is in their right to say I must be executed for blasphemy. Those are all offensive if not threatening, but it is their right to say such things as much as they want as much as I'm allowed to blaspheme whichever god I wish. None of us get to kill each other over it.

[downnola]

The post you replied to was directed at a specific comment.
There are clear differences between how the topic of free speech is handled between us and Europe.

The principle of free expression as a human right doesn't change simply because a country decides to refuse to protect it. The first amendment of the US constitution reflects that some people do feel It's worth protecting so his comment still stands. In any case I'd rather hear why you feel that guarding people from offense is more important than speech.

[Deleted]

Freedom of speech is meaningless if you're only going to protect speech you agree with. The white supremacist is allowed to tell me to leave 'Murica, the Dominionist is free to tell me about how under their theocracy I will be enslaved for my own good, and the fundamentalist Muslim is in their right to say I must be executed for blasphemy. Those are all offensive if not threatening, but it is their right to say such things as much as they want as much as I'm allowed to blaspheme whichever god I wish. None of us get to kill each other over it.

Who said anything about banning stuff you don't agree with?
Freedom of speech isn't "I can insult people freely".

- - - Updated - - -

The principle of free expression as a human right doesn't change simply because a country decides to refuse to protect it. The first amendment of the US constitution reflects that some people do feel It's worth protecting so his comment still stands. In any case I'd rather hear why you feel that guarding people from offense is more important than speech.

Look, I'm really not interested in a debate on how you view freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech by itself as a force of nature kept outside the law is a ridiculous concept. Laws against verbal harassment for example, are a testament that you can't in fact say whatever you want.

This pseudo religious view of "the words of the founders" being kept above the law as if they were sacred, is to be honest, not any different than basic your laws on religious dogma.
"Freedom of speech" is a right to be protected, which doesn't mean it sits above the law created to protect the citizens.

[downnola]

Look, I'm really not interested in a debate on how you view freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech by itself as a force of nature kept outside the law is a ridiculous concept. Laws against verbal harassment for example, are a testament that you can't in fact say whatever you want.

Harrassing or threatening someone and drawing a satirical cartoon are different things. If you want to interpret arguments in favor of expression as a defense of literally all words spoken or written then thats your fault, not mine.

This pseudo religious view of "the words of the founder" being kept above the law as if they were sacred, is to be honest, not any different than basic your laws on religious dogma.
"Freedom of speech" is a right to be protected, which doesn't mean it sits above the law created to protect the citizens.

I didn't say a word about the founders, I mentioned constitutional law. The defense of free speech as a concept has been defended since the days of ancient Greece. I don't need to invoke the founders to defend my views on free expression and there's nothing dogmatic about debating why it's a right worth defending.

[Deleted]

Harrassing or threatening someone and drawing a satirical cartoon are different things. If you want to interpret arguments in favor of expression as a defense of literally all words spoken or written then thats your fault, not mine.

Hold on, you were talking about "Freedom of speech", not this particular example, which I NEVER said should be banned.

I didn't say a word about the founders, I mentioned constitutional law. The defense of free speech as a concept has been defended since the days of ancient Greece. I don't need to invoke the founders to defend my views on free expression and there's nothing dogmatic about debating why it's a right worth defending.

And once again, this idea of concepts being held above the law in a quasi sacred manner is... idealistic and dogmatic.

There are laws that prevent you from saying what you want to someone else. This means this highly held concept isn't exactly sacred since its already being limited or is it?

It is most definitely a right worth defending. It is absolutely not a concept to be held above the law.
Hence, laws against verbal harassment.

[downnola]

Hold on, you were talking about "Freedom of speech", not this particular example, which I NEVER said should be banned.

Free speech and free expression are often used interchangeably. The notion that people should be free to express ideas or opinion out loud applies to printing or drawing them too.

And once again, this idea of concepts being held above the law in a quasi sacred manner is... idealistic and dogmatic.

There are laws that prevent you from saying what you want to someone else. This means this highly held concept isn't exactly sacred since its already being limited or is it?

It is most definitely a right worth defending. It is absolutely not a concept to be held above the law.
Hence, laws against verbal harassment.

A law can limit or restrict anything, but that doesn't mean that law is just or that people shouldn't have a right to do what that legislation prevents. There have been laws that support slavery and apartheid; does that mean I can't argue against these things through principles? Is the concept that "Man has no property in man." dogmatic because a law existed that supported slavery? How was apartheid defeated if principles or concepts couldn't be held above the law?

All of this is beside the point anyway, because you're misinterpreting the position most people hold when defending free expression or speech.

[Deleted]

Free speech and free expression are often used interchangeably. The notion that people should be free to express ideas or opinion out loud applies to printing or drawing them too.



A law can limit or restrict anything, but that doesn't mean that law is just or that people shouldn't have a right to do what that legislation prevents. There have been laws that support slavery and apartheid; does that mean I can't argue against these things through principles? Is the concept that "Man has no property in man." dogmatic because a law existed that supported slavery? How was apartheid defeated if principles or concepts couldn't be held above the law?

All of this is beside the point anyway, because you're misinterpreting the position most people hold when defending free expression or speech.

And that's fine, if they respect they laws they themselves are subject to.

Controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala has been sentenced to two months in jail by a Belgian court for racist and anti-Semitic comments he made during a show in Belgium.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34921071

As I said earlier on, I really see no benefits in a long debate about free speech. Us and Europe's approach to free speech differ.

In presentations before foreign audiences, I have compared the very strong constitutional protection of freedom of speech in the United States with the somewhat lesser protection of freedom of speech provided under the constitutions of other democratic nations and under international human rights norms. My foreign audiences have reacted with astonishment at hearing how far the United States goes in protecting highly offensive forms of speech that the rest of the world prohibits, such as "hate speech." The skepticism of my foreign audiences about the sweeping constitutional protection of freedom of speech in the United States is shared by those American constitutional law commentators who have long contended that the Supreme Court has gone "too far" in protecting freedom of speech against the government's efforts to prevent and sanction "harmful speech."

Last year I made a presentation to a Humanities Brown Bag Colloquium at Wayne State in which I asked the participants to explore the difference between constitutional protection of freedom of speech in the United States and "the rest of the world" in light of humanistic values. I asked them to consider questions such as whether humanistic values provide guidance as to how strongly we should protect freedom of speech when it takes the form of "hate speech" and what most of us would consider "bad ideas." Conversely, I asked them to consider whether humanistic values could be relied on to justify the strong constitutional protection that we give to freedom of speech in the United States.

Much to my surprise, a consensus seemed to emerge. The consensus was that the strong constitutional protection for freedom of speech in the United States was itself an American humanistic value, a value that was the product of our own history and experience, and a value that is reflected in American culture. Thus, in the United States a concern for humanistic values would justify protecting "bad ideas" and "harmful speech" rather than restricting them. This conclusion was in accord with my long-held position that the strong constitutional protection of freedom of speech in the United States is an integral part of American culture, resulting from our own history and experience. It is an American phenomenon. By the same token, I have also maintained that other nations, with a different history and experience, could understandably be less protective of freedom of speech than we are. For example, Germany, a nation trying to combat the horrific legacy of Naziism and the Holocaust, surely could not be expected to tolerate any form of "hate speech" or any display of Nazi symbols, or any advocacy of genocide. The same might be true of the European nations that endured terrible suffering under the Nazi aggression of World War II and the Holocaust and of the State of Israel.

But in the United States the strong constitutional protection of freedom of speech is embedded in the American culture of the twenty-first century, and the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech serves to implement the values of American society today.

On top of that, I never claimed hebdo should be closed for this.
As someone said earlier on, however cruel it might sound, they would have been closed without the free publicity they got recently.
They're providing a service the market has deemed redundant.

[Deleted]

If you do something shitty to someone else, you should expect some kind of retaliation.

Any kind of retaliation? "You mocked me so you deserve to be killed." "You fucked my daughter so you deserve to be beaten up."

What kind of ridiculous world do you live in?

Words can and often do cause far more damage than actions.

It's impossible for words to literally cause someone to be murdered, whereas what you're defending (or shrugging off) is actually murder.

If a black person gets beat up randomly, he'll heal in time and after a while not think much of it.

What a stupid comment.

Firstly, he may not, some injuries remain with you for life.

Secondly, many people who are beaten up can develop social anxiety from it.

If he gets called n*gger and singled out, you can bet he'll remember it for the rest of his life.

Uh, I have no idea how you can know this. It depends on a) the person, b) the context and c) how upset it really made them. You're generalising an entire race.

Yes, I have much less, if any, empathy for the person provoking.

You have a ridiculous personal philosophy.

[Deleted]

They were terrorists by any definition, shopping centres are not legitimate military targets.

And Northern Ireland is occupied by the Northern Irish, who want to remain a part of the UK. They wouldn't have freed the remaining portion of their country at all, they would have subjugated a population who had no wish to be part of Eire, i.e. occupied by a foreign state.

The desires of those terrorists and terrorist sympathisers like you, would mean going against the will of the people in order to fulfil some archaic fantasy.

Clearly you've missed the fact that the majority of Ireland voted for independence, and due to the acts of terrorists the North was allowed to "op-out". A foreign government occupied my country, and partitioned it. It wasn't just then, and it isn't just now. The Re-unification of my country will be the single greatest thing to happen in Irish history. And if there are those that try and stop it, can simply go back to Britain where they were planted from. There is also no such thing as "Northern Irish" if you're born on any part of Ireland you are Irish.

[Kalis]

Clearly you've missed the fact that the majority of Ireland voted for independence, and due to the acts of terrorists the North was allowed to "op-out".

Except on the vote you are talking about, the majority of those in Northern Ireland voted for unionist parties, which you conventiently forget to mention. Funny that slipped your mind.

A foreign government occupied my country, and partitioned it. It wasn't just then, and it isn't just now. The Re-unification of my country will be the single greatest thing to happen in Irish history.

The future of Northern Ireland is up to the people of Northern Ireland.

You are demanding that democracy should be ignored in order to force foreign rule upon a people who don't want it. Little bit fascist of you, but then again you are a terrorist supporter, so democracy and the will of the people is utterly meaningless to the likes of you.

And if there are those that try and stop it, can simply go back to Britain where they were planted from.

Or they could just stay in their homes in Northern Ireland and remain a part of the UK.

Self determination is a thing nowadays, the colonial era is over and we are not going to willingly let our people be colonised. Not that you have any power to do anything about it, just impotent rhetoric.

Plus not even the Catholics in Northern Ireland are interested in joining with Eire anytime soon and the Government in the South has said it is not currently feasible.

There is also no such thing as "Northern Irish" if you're born on any part of Ireland you are Irish.

Northern Ireland is a country and the demonym of its inhabitants is Northern Irish, you are literally arguing with reality now.

[Ahovv]

Yes, I will fully defend and stand by anyone who is fucking shot over their free expression. Next.