Do we have the right to offend?

[Jmack]

Read it. Point being you come across as someone who wishes to be able to insult anyone if you wish to, yes?

 

My point is that you simply don't have the balls to actually follow that through.

 

You would only be prepared to insult someone who would not be a threat to you.

 

For instance, if you met a 6'5" eighteen stone Millwall fan with a broken nose and a tattoo on each set of knuckles saying 'love' & 'hate' with one across his chest saying 'Everyone hates us we don't care' you wouldn't walk up to him & say 'na then you ugly cockney git, your team is crap and your a twohat' would you?

 

That's the test you see. If you want to be able to say what you want to anyone you meet then fair enough, go for it.

 

But you aren't up to that are you? So why not do what most of us do and treat people kindly, until such time as they insult you?

 

At which point say what you want.

 

I used the phrase I used to explain the total irrelavance of someone being offended by some of you opinion. I've already stated I'd never say that.

 

Has it become policy that to join SF you have to leave behind all sense of perception.

[Nagel]

Well, you can be prosecuted for saying things that are illegal. So technically you can say them, but you don't have a right to say them without consequences.

 

For the stuff that isn't illegal but is offensive, you might just get criticisised instead of prosecuted.

 

Should there be anything that's illegal to say though? I'd say not.

 

I'm with Stephen Fry on this one -

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."

[mafya]

Should there be anything that's illegal to say though? I'd say not.

 

I'm with Stephen Fry on this one -

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."

 

Try saying something offensive about the holocaust and see how it is taken, I hear in some places you get locked up for denying it.

[Nagel]

Try saying something offensive about the holocaust and see how it is taken, I hear in some places you get locked up for denying it.

 

And I disagree with that policy. Thankfully you can say what you want about the Holocaust in this country and it really doesn't make any difference in our lives that Holocaust deniers are allowed free speech.

 

---------- Post added 25-01-2014 at 00:44 ----------

 

I rather like the First Amendment to the US Constitution which states-

 

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

 

Yes, I know there are restrictions on free speech in the USA, but they are freer than most countries with respect to what you can say and print.

[psynuk]

From Lord Justice Sedley ruling on Redmond-Bate v DPP 1999

"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.

 

From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power.

 

We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy.

 

 

Unfortunately this kind of astute wisdom will fall on many politically corrected tabloid agendized deaf ears.

I read this today which really does strike a chord with me.

 

https://twitter.com/JordanMp_/status/423075870144618496/photo/1

 

It

[janie48]

Should there be anything that's illegal to say though? I'd say not.

 

I'm with Stephen Fry on this one -

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."

Sounds to me as if he's whining himself if he finds it offensive that someone is offended.

If he can't take it then don't dish it out.

[psynuk]

Try saying something offensive about the holocaust and see how it is taken, I hear in some places you get locked up for denying it.

 

'they say there's safety in numbers, five million jews would disagree'

Jimmy Carr.

 

and some places you don't.

If your easily offended then comedy, discussion groups, and the internet should be avoided, these places just aren't suitable for people with fragile sensibilities.

Which is what is happening on the internet as it gets an influx of attention from 'middle england' types and the powers that be trying to inflict meat world values onto what used to be a fairly modern forward thinking place.

being -outrageously- offended is fast becoming tedious and makes me feel all stabby.

[macmellus]

'they say there's safety in numbers, five million jews would disagree'

Jimmy Carr.

 

 

Are you suggesting that's offensive? It's a very slightly humorous way of viewing a short phrase in a wider perspective. You could try a lot harder when it comes to the holocaust, surely.

[Mister M]

'they say there's safety in numbers, five million jews would disagree'

Jimmy Carr.

 

and some places you don't.

If your easily offended then comedy, discussion groups, and the internet should be avoided, these places just aren't suitable for people with fragile sensibilities.

Which is what is happening on the internet as it gets an influx of attention from 'middle england' types and the powers that be trying to inflict meat world values onto what used to be a fairly modern forward thinking place.

being -outrageously- offended is fast becoming tedious and makes me feel all stabby.

 

Strange. I wouldn't say that the internet was ever a modern forward thinking place; rather it quickly became the place to be for people to spout reactionary, and offensive drivel under the guise of a liberal 'freedom of speech' banner.

Strange too that you choose categorise 'middle England types' as thorns in the side of the 'forward thinking place' that is the internet; since the mouth piece of middle England types, The Daily Mail (or known as the Daily Heil in this context), is notorious for fulminating against anything that is progessive, ridiculing liberal causes, and being outraged itself when anything genuinely radical is proposed that might harm its readership's interests.

Careful you don't get too stabby

[mjw47]

I used the phrase I used to explain the total irrelavance of someone being offended by some of you opinion. I've already stated I'd never say that.

 

Has it become policy that to join SF you have to leave behind all sense of perception.

 

No but apparently it is becoming policy for WUMs to regularly start stupid threads.

 

Personally I'm all for free speech. ' I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.' Voltaire.

 

But that's different to 'do we have the right to offend?' Isn't it?

 

Free speech is the right to voice an opinion on any subject, and is an essential part of any society which wishes to regard itself as a free Democracy.

 

Stating your opposing view to someone else's opinion should not give offence. Providing that you use reasoned argument and do not introduce personal insults into the discussion.

 

The 'right to offend' could also be expressed as 'do we have the right to be ill mannered and obnoxious.'

 

My opinion is that providing you are prepared to accept the consequences of behaving in that manner there is little to stop you.

 

It isn't a 'right' though. Where you have a 'right' to do something there should be no consequences involved, either under the law or by direct personal action.