When does freedom of speech become unacceptable?

[RootsBooster]

Not at all. They can ignore the offence or give some back by pointing and telling them that they are a silly bugger if that floats their boat.

 

At some point it it can escalate to incitement but simply being offended isn't incitement, it's more of an invitation to expose stupidity. I think most of us can see where the common sense boundaries are in individual situations without the need for a blanket ban on a particular type of speech.

 

If they're not offended then they're not offended, so not having the right not to be offended means you have to be offended.

It's a binary position, you're either offended or you're not.

 

Is the double negative intentional on your part?

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 12:00 ----------

 

Or stop being offensive - most people know when they offend someone. What am I gaining by drawing a picture of Mohammed or launching a homophobic rant on Stephen frys Twitter feed. I'm just being a spiteful arse.

There's a bit of a difference though, while homophobia is mostly spiteful and hateful against people, drawing a picture of Mohammed quite often isn't.

 

You could be good friends with a Muslim and decide to paint or draw a very nice picture of Mohammed for them but it would still be an offence in Islam.

Edited January 20, 2016 by RootsBooster

[Eric Arthur]

If they're not offended then they're not offended, so not having the right not to be offended means you have to be offended.

It's a binary position, you're either offended or you're not.

 

Let's draw back from linguistics and look at a practical application. Would you agree that sometimes people go looking for offence.

 

It's so passe to use yet another Islamic example but it's shows a stark contrast, how many offended Muslims saw the Charlie Hebdo cartoon that was apparently offensive? One, Two? A million? Some? None? They went looking for offence, Charlie Hebdo didn't intentionally give any. I'll caveat this example by saying that I expect most Muslims couldn't have cared less.

 

Westboro Baptist Church are permanently offended. The last I heard was that they are going to picket David Bowie's funeral. They went looking for offence, Bowie didn't intentionally give any.

 

Guardian readers are permanently offended, that daft Apprentice woman is, this forum is, but only because they go looking for it.

[RootsBooster]

Let's draw back from linguistics and look at a practical application. Would you agree that sometimes people go looking for offence.

 

It's so passe to use yet another Islamic example but it's shows a stark contrast, how many offended Muslims saw the Charlie Hebdo cartoon that was apparently offensive? One, Two? A million? Some? None? They went looking for offence, Charlie Hebdo didn't intentionally give any. I'll caveat this example by saying that I expect most Muslims couldn't have cared less.

 

Westboro Baptist Church are permanently offended. The last I heard was that they are going to picket David Bowie's funeral. They went looking for offence, Bowie didn't intentionally give any.

 

Guardian readers are permanently offended, that daft Apprentice woman is, this forum is, but only because they go looking for it.

 

So what are we actually talking about (you haven't clarified), people not having the right to be offended or people not having the right not to be offended?

[runningman1]

Or stop being offensive - most people know when they offend someone. What am I gaining by drawing a picture of Mohammed or launching a homophobic rant on Stephen frys Twitter feed. I'm just being a spiteful arse.

 

But how do you decide what is offensive? A lot of people would be offended at a man kissing another man.

 

I see things that offend me often, I ignore it and so should everyone else.

[Stoned]

It is one of the big questions of our times. And the big thing it relates to: decline of religion. In the past it was easy: Don't say anything that would upset *insert generic god*.

 

We have increasingly been letting go of that notion and don't quite know what to replace it with. I can't remember the philosopher's name right now, but there was a Frenchman who wrote extensively about this in the 50's/60's and what he said back then is becoming true now: We are failing to keep track of our social norms.

Freedom of speech must be limitless otherwise it is not freedom of speech. My opinion and my right to speak my opinion trumps anyones feelings.

Remember offence is not given, it is taken.

[runningman1]

If they don't have a right not to be offended, then they would have to be offended. Unless there is some other option I'm not seeing.

 

No. I have no right not to be offended. This doesn't mean I am offended. I have many rights, the right to freedom of speech, the right to a family life, the right to pursue a religion etc. One of these rights is not the right to not be offended by people or things.

[DnAuK]

It most certainly would have some credence if what you said was true, can you please direct me to where ever there is some actual evidence of evolution.

 

To the best of my knowledge no hard evidence exists.

 

Plenty of assumptions and assertions I'll grant you that but alas as yet no evidence.

.

.

.

 

Tons of evidence actually. This is a rather nice example:

 

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 13:05 ----------

 

The stifling of freedom of speech has infected - of all places - Oxford University.

 

The Oxford Union, which is a private debating society, has received an open letter from the University of Oxford signed by Academics and students demanding that they rescind an invitation to Marine Le Pen to speak.

 

Ms Le Pen is leader of the Front National in France and personally I find her views and those of her organization to be abhorrent.

 

However, banning her the right to express those views, especially in a University where freedom of thought and expression should be encouraged seems ridiculous to me.

 

So this is OK is it?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391194/Speaker-tells-students-s-fine-hit-wife-doesn-t-string-extremists-touring-British-universities-unchallenged.html

 

Just asking...

[Eric Arthur]

So what are we actually talking about (you haven't clarified), people not having the right to be offended or people not having the right not to be offended?

 

You seem to have tied yourself up in knots. Option 1 makes no sense and Option 2 makes no more sense than Option 1.

 

Let's move it on.

[DnAuK]

But how do you decide what is offensive? A lot of people would be offended at a man kissing another man.

 

I see things that offend me often, I ignore it and so should everyone else.

 

Just to put a light hearted twist on this for a minute it is worth watching this fantastic sketch from the wonderful comedian Steve Hughes on being offended.

 

 

Highlight is the bit where he stats he is offended by boy bands. "Hello, police? They are on TV now!" You and me both mate!

[Quik]

Or stop being offensive - most people know when they offend someone. What am I gaining by drawing a picture of Mohammed or launching a homophobic rant on Stephen frys Twitter feed. I'm just being a spiteful arse.

 

Those are two rather different things. You can draw pictures of mohammed or express views that are highly critical of homosexuality to your hearts content. If you direct those comments to an individual (stephen fry in your example) then you are possibly committing an offence, just as you would be potentially committing an offence if you post your muhamed cartoons through a muslim neighbours letter box.

 

Free speech does not mean you have a right to harass people.