Poll Indicates Almost 3/4 Favor Free Speech Over Avoiding Offending Other Cultures

#3
There is no right not to be offended. If you express a view of any kind you can expect to have it disagreed with, pilloried or have the piss taken out of you.

That includes Muslims, Creationists, Football enthusiasts or people who like the X Factor.

But with free speech comes responsibilities and I see nothing wrong with jailing the ignorant and bad mannered little twats that go trolling looking to cause gratuitous offence among grieving relatives etc etc.

You can make pretty much whatever point you wish, just mind your manners - or expect to find them minded for you - as my mum used to say.
 
#5
There is no right not to be offended. If you express a view of any kind you can expect to have it disagreed with, pilloried or have the piss taken out of you.

That includes Muslims, Creationists, Football enthusiasts or people who like the X Factor.

But with free speech comes responsibilities and I see nothing wrong with jailing the ignorant and bad mannered little twats that go trolling looking to cause gratuitous offence among grieving relatives etc etc.

You can make pretty much whatever point you wish, just mind your manners - or expect to find them minded for you - as my mum used to say.
Micawber, I was with you up until you advocated X Factor watchers being allowed a fair hearing. Quite frankly they deserve no consideration whatsoever given that they obviously have the mental capacity of an amoebae.
 
#8
Wasn't offering them a fair hearing, I was lumping them together as people who can expect to be lambasted and have no right to be protected from being upset by it.

On a practical note, I reckon attempting to tiptoe through life without upsetting a Creationist would be even harder than trying to keep the Muslims on side.

The Arab ones anyway. The Indonesians seem quite a sensible bunch as these things go.
 
#9
Wasn't offering them a fair hearing, I was lumping them together as people who can expect to be lambasted and have no right to be protected from being upset by it.

On a practical note, I reckon attempting to tiptoe through life without upsetting a Creationist would be even harder than trying to keep the Muslims on side.

The Arab ones anyway. The Indonesians seem quite a sensible bunch as these things go.
As an unabashed Creationist, I am offended but will restrain my urge to hunt you down and burn you and all your possessions. ;-)
 
#10
I think you'll find that in Europe democracy takes second place to political correctness. Just because a majority want something doesn't mean our nanny politicians will give it to us. We are too stupid to understand the issues you see.
 
#11
On a practical note, I reckon attempting to tiptoe through life without upsetting a Creationist would be even harder than trying to keep the Muslims on side.
Yep Amish terrorists are waaay more deadlier than Mr. Al Kada.... the fear inspired in the Pennsylvania night as you hear the clip clop of approaching cart horses and you realize next will be the DBIED Donkey Borne IED, and the shrill cries of "Amen"

But with free speech comes responsibilities and I see nothing wrong with jailing the ignorant and bad mannered little twats that go trolling looking to cause gratuitous offence among grieving relatives etc etc..
So Jail anyone who you think is offensive....
 
#12
No but if you go so far as to spread rumours some random stranger is a nonce and bombard said stranger with offensive messages then jail is a good idea.
Tweeting offensive stuff should get you jailed if only because your too stupid not to put your REAL NAME to your stupidity:)
 
#13
Yep Amish terrorists are waaay more deadlier than Mr. Al Kada.... the fear inspired in the Pennsylvania night as you hear the clip clop of approaching cart horses and you realize next will be the DBIED Donkey Borne IED, and the shrill cries of "Amen"

So Jail anyone who you think is offensive....
Do you perhaps mean the clip clop and snip snip as the heartless so and so takes a chunk out of your beard? The swine!
 
#14
Personally I couldn't give a shit if other cultures are offended. Many people have died for the freedoms that seem to be being taken away from us because it may cause offence to some ethnic minority or other and it is time for that to stop.

What these other cultures who react violently to some cartoon or other should ask themselves is why civilised cultures don't act the way they do when they cause offence to us.
 
#15
From Wiki:

"These six states in America constitutionally ban atheists from holding public office:
Arkansas: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[SUP][77][/SUP]
Maryland:"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[SUP][78][/SUP]
Mississippi: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[SUP][79][/SUP]
South Carolina: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[SUP][80][/SUP]
Tennessee: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[SUP][81][/SUP]
Texas: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[SUP][82]"[/SUP]


It would seem as though 12% of the states don't like freedom of speech or religion, if you are forced to say you believe something in order to serve the people.
 
#16
Everyone should have the right to their own point of view and the right to get their own PoV across. However I see no need to taunt someone or to deliberately rile them or goad them into some sort of a reaction. It is perfectly reasonable to hold a contrary view to someone but to be deliberately provocative is quite another.

If you just set out to insult then I don't see why you should enjoy any form of protection. Freedom of speech is the freedom to hold and express a contrary view to the accepted norm or the official line without fear of reprisal, sanction or censorship it is not the freedom to inflame or taunt others, particularly those who don't have the education or intelligence to see such tactics for what they are.

Many Americans seem to think it reasonable to lose a few good American lives to preserve the right of some loony church group to rile and inflame others. It is well known how precious some Muslims can be about their religion, unless America wants to be fighting most of the rest of the world it might be a good idea to shut some of these hotheads up because they're only the ones doing the name-calling they're not the ones bleeding out on the streets of Benghazi.

If they aren't prepared to go to the Middle East and say the words in person why allow them to hide behind the US apron strings and taunt people from afar?
 
#17
Everyone should have the right to their own point of view and the right to get their own PoV across. However I see no need to taunt someone or to deliberately rile them or goad them into some sort of a reaction. It is perfectly reasonable to hold a contrary view to someone but to be deliberately provocative is quite another.

If you just set out to insult then I don't see why you should enjoy any form of protection. Freedom of speech is the freedom to hold and express a contrary view to the accepted norm or the official line without fear of reprisal, sanction or censorship it is not the freedom to inflame or taunt others, particularly those who don't have the education or intelligence to see such tactics for what they are.

Many Americans seem to think it reasonable to lose a few good American lives to preserve the right of some loony church group to rile and inflame others. It is well known how precious some Muslims can be about their religion, unless America wants to be fighting most of the rest of the world it might be a good idea to shut some of these hotheads up because they're only the ones doing the name-calling they're not the ones bleeding out on the streets of Benghazi.

If they aren't prepared to go to the Middle East and say the words in person why allow them to hide behind the US apron strings and taunt people from afar?
I agree with most of your post but when you ask "why allow" what do you mean? If you mean by the government through the force of its police power, then we disagree.

When government gets involved, history shows its natural tendency is to expand control from what may have at first seemed a reasonable restraint.

In a microcosm example here in America we have in recent years seen "speech codes" enacted by local governments and universities and even the federal government with its now overturned Stolen Valor Act. With the former, virtually all of them kept expanding as more and more "victims" demanded they be protected from having to hear negative things they were especially offended by. Many have now collapsed under their own weight and been repealed or overturned by the courts.
 
#18
I agree with most of your post but when you ask "why allow" what do you mean? If you mean by the government through the force of its police power, then we disagree.

When government gets involved, history shows its natural tendency is to expand control from what may have at first seemed a reasonable restraint.

In a microcosm example here in America we have in recent years seen "speech codes" enacted by local governments and universities and even the federal government with its now overturned Stolen Valor Act. With the former, virtually all of them kept expanding as more and more "victims" demanded they be protected from having to hear negative things they were especially offended by. Many have now collapsed under their own weight and been repealed or overturned by the courts.
I certainly don't have a code of what is allowable and what is not but I feel that any action or words which exist solely to inflame should be seen in the light of a physical attack rather than an expression of free speech. Presumably you have slander in the US so how does that exist with total freedom of speech?

I'm mindful of a huge trial over here when McDonalds took a couple of hippies to court because they had printed leaflets that basically said McDonalds was shite, bad nutrition and was trying to take over the world. The trial cost millions and achieved the sum of nothing. Clearly Americans only embrace Freedom of Speech in their own country but don't see it as a principle to abide by in other jurisdictions.

The thing I most hate about this and similar affairs and one which you, as a Gentleman of the Southern States must appreciate, is that it is just plain bad manners.
 
#19
I certainly don't have a code of what is allowable and what is not but I feel that any action or words which exist solely to inflame should be seen in the light of a physical attack rather than an expression of free speech. Presumably you have slander in the US so how does that exist with total freedom of speech?

I'm mindful of a huge trial over here when McDonalds took a couple of hippies to court because they had printed leaflets that basically said McDonalds was shite, bad nutrition and was trying to take over the world. The trial cost millions and achieved the sum of nothing. Clearly Americans only embrace Freedom of Speech in their own country but don't see it as a principle to abide by in other jurisdictions.

The thing I most hate about this and similar affairs and one which you, as a Gentleman of the Southern States must appreciate, is that it is just plain bad manners.
Well said. Indeed there are some limits on free speech as developed through legal precedents such as defamation (slander and libel), "fighting words," "obscenity" and such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

The rub is that since free speech is specifically protected under our Constitution and more particularly the Bill of Rights, the standard for a judicial decision finding such things is "strict scrutiny" such that very few cases succeed in the US. This is of course far different from UK and continental Europe.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top