When does freedom of speech become unacceptable?

[RootsBooster]

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.

 

I think between these;

 

-Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

-Freedom of expression

-Right to liberty and security

 

...you have a right to not be offended, in the same way the above provide you a right to pick your nose or watch TV or not go out for a walk.

Edited January 20, 2016 by RootsBooster

[petemcewan]

I think it's the lack of understanding to the Middle East and the Arabic world. When I heard what David Cameron was saying, I found this very alarming. I would have thought at worst, he'd understand the mentality of the Arabic people and their religion.

 

It's not just religion to these guys... it's their life. It's a passion I've never seen before. Ever. When it's held in a good context which is more often than not, I actually found it very inspiring. But when it's not and when the minority of people then give it a reason to be a terrorist, they abuse their own religion in my opinion.

 

So writing thing's about Mohammed for example; I can understand why some people get upset. Their religion is valued differently to our religion.

 

That's not to say I condone what they did in Paris in anyway, in fact like most people, it was evil and a pathetic excuse. But that's what these terrorist's are going to do. It give's them a reason to be evil... and we should understand this. Hence freedom of speech needs to be reviewed and updated to fit modern life.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech; but there has to be a line.

 

I like the sensitivity of your post. However, the concept of freedom of speech -and the defense of it , is not simple. It's taxed the minds of some of the greatest thinkers/philosophers that have ever lived.

John Locke (letters concerning toleration ) had the following to say, " political discourse can be a political right and the restrictions on blasphemy ,sexual explicitness and personal insults are restrictions on the freedom of speech" (Contemporary Political Philosophy. Radical Studies, Edited by Keith Graham ).

Now I'm not advocating the ," Bernard Manning" principles of free speech. And clearly-to me that is- there are circumstances where all the dimensions of free speech are not defensible by just invoking the concept of free speech.

But why draw the "line" at religion ? If people so wished ,the "line " could be drawn at political comments and broadcasts.

Edited January 20, 2016 by petemcewan

[runningman1]

I think between these;

 

-Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

-Freedom of expression

-Right to liberty and security

 

...you have a right to not be offended, in the same way the above provide you a right to pick your nose or watch TV or not go out for a walk.

 

No I don't. No one has the right to not be offended.

[RootsBooster]

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?

No I don't. No one has the right to not be offended.

 

 

Only in the same way that you don't have a right not to talk to yourself.

Or in the same way that you don't have a right not to do backflips.

 

These things have no specific rights that apply solely to them, they are covered by other rights. If every single thing needed it's own right there wouldn't be enough paper in the world to write it down on, that's before you even get to your rights not to do stuff

[L00b]

And clearly -to me that is- there are circumstances where all the dimensions of free speech are not defensible by just invoking the concept of free speech.

Nail on head, and as valid a summary response to the question of the OP as any I'm likely to read (and agree with, obviously).

 

Freedom of speech becomes "unacceptable" when it becomes harmful for the society in which it is being exercised, wherein "harmful" is to be construed as what that particular society codifies to be harmful according to its laws (which, themselves, are by and large inspired from that society's socio-historical culture) at a particular point in time.

 

Case in point, and which is not religion-based: Holocaust denying (in certain countries).

 

Another example, fresh in people's minds: caricature drawings of Mohamed. Legal and a conventional form of free speech in secular societies, particularly those with a long history of caricature for political and social commentary (like Western Europe). Illegal and a potentially deadly form of expression in non-secular Muslim societies.

 

In simple terms, really it boils down to this: given a prevalent socio-cultural context ("when in Rome..."), don't be a <REMOVED>, and all will be well.

Edited January 20, 2016 by nikki-red
masked swearing

[runningman1]

Only in the same way that you don't have a right not to talk to yourself.

Or in the same way that you don't have a right not to do backflips.

 

These things have no specific rights that apply solely to them, they are covered by other rights. If every single thing needed it's own right there wouldn't be enough paper in the world to write it down on, that's before you even get to your rights not to do stuff

 

I don't get what you don't understand. If I was offended by your inability to grasp my point, no one would care. If I was offended by the use of the n word in music, no one would care. I do not have any right not to be offended by you.

[petemcewan]

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

I think it is based on the "principle" that those who advocate intolerance of

 

other cannot claim tolerance for their own views. Such a position is found in Karl Poppers writings:The Open Society And It's Enemies. The idea behind it is ,we only tolerate those who are tolerant . But the view that only those who are tolerant have the right to be tolerated, is conceptually as well as actually comic. It's as Loob says in the last sentence .

I'll come off the fence. They should let him come and make a fool of himself.

Edited January 20, 2016 by petemcewan

[RootsBooster]

I don't get what you don't understand. If I was offended by your inability to grasp my point, no one would care. If I was offended by the use of the n word in music, no one would care. I do not have any right not to be offended by you.

 

Your post is extremely inconsistent and therefore makes little sense.

 

You've given two examples of something to be offended about and then finished off with one example of something not to be offended about.

[runningman1]

Your post is extremely inconsistent and therefore makes little sense.

 

You've given two examples of something to be offended about and then finished off with one example of something not to be offended about.

 

No I haven't and you don't understand.

Let's just leave it at that as we are going around in circles.

[Mister M]

The idea that we have freedom of speech in this country is somewhat old fashioned.

 

I think it's considered old fashioned by some because the nature of society is changing, its laws and customs.

I would agree that it's a shame that rules have to be spelt out explicitly, because as children we learn what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Quite rightly we show tolerance to children who don't understand social etiquette, and hopefully they will learn as they grow up.

However the internet, multiculturalism, identity politics, decline in deference and people's awareness of their legal rights have all challenged ideas about freedom of speech.

 

Its not what you say its how you say it.

 

Agreed - (up to a point). People with few social skills, who lack empathy and speak before engaging their brain will not persuade others of the rightness of their argument.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Mister M