Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 126

Thread: Satire and Reaction: Nous sommes Charlie

  1. #16
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    @Dieter: I found your comments about satire interesting. I agree that in principle no distinction need be drawn in lampooning the secular and the sacred (in practice, of course, one stays one hand where one chooses). I agree that "You can discuss and attack and ridicule and refute socialism, conservatism, ecologism, what have you not; so of course you are allowed to discuss and attack and ridicule and refute any religious doctrine you like."

    What struck me, though, and what I have been mulling over ever since, is your idea that while political and religious doctrine may be fair game, individuals are not (because, as you say, it is possible to insult people but not ideas). That is a generous and compassionate position, but it is not one that I entirely support (some individuals, quite frankly, deserve to be insulted). It seems to me that lampooning public figures (presidents, popes, general secretaries, etc.) falls well within the bailiwick of the satirist. In fact, I see this approach (which is overtly farcical) as preferable to the personal attacks one finds (in America in any case) during election campaigns. But that is only a personal preference, of course. Those who sponsor political attack ads obviously have the right to be heard, and the innocent have the law courts for redress.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 01-18-2015 at 02:29 PM.

  2. #17
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    The U.S. has not outlawed “hate speech”, and it is harder to successfully sue someone for libel here than in most Western countries. Nonetheless, I wonder if proponents of "freedom of speech" would also support eliminating copyright laws? Obviously, copyrights limit free speech, as do laws against (for example) fraud.

    My own opinion is that copyrights should be strictly limited to the economic realm, and that free speech should reign outside of that realm. I know a woman who produces high school plays. Not only does the school have to pay for the right to use a copyrighted play, but some playwrights make ridiculous demands. One playwright demanded that none of the dialogue could be changed. If that isn't a limit on free speech, I don't know what is.

    I don't mean to derail the conversation, merely to point out that Free Speech is a complicated issue.
    I specifically did not mention the U.S.A where speech actually is protected to an extent Europeans find uncomfortable, too bad for them. And no it isn't remotely complicated and why the ridiculous notion of supposed 'complications ' can perpetuate the idea that there can actually be a debate around how much free speech we're allowed is absurd.

    I'll make it real simple, your right to freedom of speech ends as soon as it directly infriges upon the rights of an individual (nobody has the 'right' to not be offended btw) so copyright laws which protect your right to safeguard your own intellectual property do not contradict the tenents of freedom of expression; and things such as slander and libel as well as incitements to violence all clearly infringe on individual rights and are not protected.

    This is, by the way the basic tenent of 'rights' in general so I'm surprised it isn't better understood or cited in these free speech debates. It is not my right in a free society to steal, commit murder or pull a fire alarm (e -ucking - nough with the "duuuurr I can't shout fire in a crowded theatre so there's no freedom of speech) because all of these things directly infringe on the rights of others.
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 03:55 PM.

  3. #18
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    I'm not sure what my view that discussing reaction to the Charlie Hebdo killings doesn't violate the site's policy on debating current politics has to do with "hate crimes" or Holocaust denial. But I certainly oppose the criminalization of free speech. (I talk in one of the posts above about my objection to mandated "politically correct" thought, too, if that cools anyone's jets).
    Because secularists (though I believe you are religious but really my post wasn't directed at you specifically) in Europe and elsewhere are always up in arms about "muh freedom of speech" when it concerns religion or something else they fundamentally dislike, however when it comes to their own very sacred cows of racism and 'anti semitism' these people are perfectly content to see the state JAIL their political opponents.

  4. #19
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin View Post
    Because secularists (though I believe you are religious but really my post wasn't directed at you specifically) in Europe and elsewhere are always up in arms about "muh freedom of speech" when it concerns religion or something else they fundamentally dislike, however when it comes to their own very sacred cows of racism and 'anti semitism' these people are perfectly content to see the state JAIL their political opponents.
    Well, I still don't see what that's got to do with me or my quote. I don't espouse the views you cite (I oppose them). Still, I take your meaning and perhaps I was just a stepping stone in your expressing it. Don't worry. I'm used to being walked on.

  5. #20
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    Yeh well most people I talk to are distinguished alumni from the Frankfurt school of hard knocks (and stupid ideology), so I'm very soured on this debate in particular.

  6. #21
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin View Post

    I'll make it real simple, your right to freedom of speech ends as soon as it directly infriges upon the rights of an individual (nobody has the 'right' to not be offended btw) so copyright laws which protect your right to safeguard your own intellectual property do not contradict the tenents of freedom of expression; and things such as slander and libel as well as incitements to violence all clearly infringe on individual rights and are not protected.

    This is, by the way the basic tenent of 'rights' in general so I'm surprised it isn't better understood or cited in these free speech debates. It is not my right in a free society to steal, commit murder or pull a fire alarm (e -ucking - nough with the "duuuurr I can't shout fire in a crowded theatre so there's no freedom of speech) because all of these things directly infringe on the rights of others.
    True -- but property rights are neither more nor less than what we make them. Capitalist societies try to suggest that property implies some sort of natural relationship between a person and an inanimate object. But it doesn't. As Marx pointed out, property rights can ONLY be the right of one person to control another person (vis a vis the inanimate object). In other words, if you own a car you have no more control of the car than anyone else -- however, you have the right to have people who drive "your" car without permission thrown in prison.

    Of course it is true that plagiarizing copyrighted material "impinges on the (legal) rights of the copyright holder". However, that's only because we've created this legal category of copyrighted material. We can define property and property rights however we wish. In fact, all "rights" impinge on the "rights" (or on the freedoms, at least) of other people. That's an obvious truism, because 'rights' mean nothing more than obligations on the part of others. So the inalienable "right" to life (that we Americans mention in our Declaration) cannot protect us from grizzly bears, tsunamis, or heart attacks. It can only create a legal obligation on the part of others not to kill us.

    My points are: first, it's not "real simple". Second, since all "rights" impinge on freedom, and since "freedom" impinges on rights (this by logical inference), your argument that, "your right to freedom of speech ends as soon as it directly infriges upon the rights of an individual" is circular. My right to drive away in your car impinges on your right to control your car, but your right to control your car impinges on my right to drive away in it.

  7. #22
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    Honestly that entire post is really, really stupid and I feel dumber for having read it.
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 04:40 PM.

  8. #23
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    I agree, Clopin. You do seem to be getting dumber. I suppose anything is possible, even that.

  9. #24
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    "Hurrrrr it's all relative, I don't have the right to crash my car into your car so rights are an illuuuuuussion"
    "Duuuur, you owning your house prevents me from the right to owning it, we have no true freedumb xD"
    "Duuuuhhh you don't have the right to life because a shark can eat you LMAO"

    -Ecurb

    Anyway I think it's pretty clear that total freedom of movement and operation (swinging your arm around while holding a knife in a crowd, or crashing your car into people on the sidewalk) isn't what anyone refers to when they talk about rights. Why you brought any of this up is mysterious. Besides your argument is basically "murder, theft, rape, etc are only illegal because we make them illegal maaan", what's the point of saying that? Do you expect a legal system based on divine right or what?

    "My right to drive away in your car impinges on your right to control your car, but your right to control your car impinges on my right to drive away in it."

    Under what definition of a right do you have the right to steal my car? I mean this is so ridiculous but look, here's a literally analogous statement...

    "My right to repeatedly force myself on you impinges on your right to control your body, but your right to control your body impinges on my right to rape you"

    Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 05:32 PM.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    547
    It is not the question of free speech that is in question here. Most of the people in Western societies support free speech. The question is not of government censorship, which most Western societies have outlawed. It is the question of how far can a civilized culture will go, before saying to the provocateurs that enough is enough. Censorship regularly happens, so let's not be so self righteous and condescending. The absolute of free speech can and is regularly checked by societal mores and norms. How many journalists have been fired for ethnic, sexist, or religious slurs? Corporations that value their images and the majority of people in those Western societies with good tastes still set the bar. (maybe France is excluded).
    Last edited by virtuoso; 01-18-2015 at 06:09 PM.

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    547
    I think that what puzzles me about France is their desire to outlaw the cultural habits (dress etc) of the Muslim populace, but the ignorance to think that their will not be an impending backlash by the more violent fringes of the Muslim community. France has impinged on the Muslim women's right to wear their traditional garb in public places. Being targeted as an inferior culture, makes it easy for the uncivilized fringes to lash out. If you want to target a particular group of people, then you better have a vigilant police and military force to deal with the kook fringes. France had police without guns responding to the terrorist incident. That was pathetic.

  12. #27
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    The burqua ban is quite correct, it's unacceptable to tolerate 'cultural traditions' which so vilely oppress women. Muslims who have a problem with Western values can leave, or if this sort of violent fringe activity and sharia zones, etc become more common they will be deported.
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 06:22 PM.

  13. #28
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    Why is free speech all or nothing when everything else gets moderated? I can't drink and drive without losing my licence because there are laws to limit the amount I can drink before I get behind the wheel. If society needs so much supervision to safeguard others, why exclude free speech?
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

  14. #29
    Registered User Clopin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Delta40 View Post
    Why is free speech all or nothing when everything else gets moderated? I can't drink and drive without losing my licence because there are laws to limit the amount I can drink before I get behind the wheel. If society needs so much supervision to safeguard others, why exclude free speech?
    Driving while drunk poses a serious threat to the safety of others... come on this really isn't hard.
    Last edited by Clopin; 01-18-2015 at 11:26 PM.

  15. #30
    Registered User Delta40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fremantle Western Australia
    Posts
    9,902
    Blog Entries
    62
    if you think absolute free speech poses no risk to the safety of others, fine.
    Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chain Reaction
    By loki456 in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 07:46 AM
  2. Reaction about Discrimination
    By krisgil_aguila in forum Serious Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-30-2010, 09:32 PM
  3. Your reaction?
    By Lokasenna in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:39 AM
  4. Coops Reaction Too-- Two
    By tallcoopscoach in forum Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-08-2005, 11:13 PM
  5. Satire Writers / Satire Readers
    By cabbagewrite in forum The Literature Network
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2004, 03:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •