Satire and Reaction: Nous sommes Charlie

[Pompey Bum]

I am starting this thread out of respect for Dieter's request to maintain the Je Suis Charlie thread as one for poetry.

The story so far:


I agree with your freedom of speech mantra, but too often some of the so-called open-minded intelligentsia lash out in an intemperate manner. I do not think that it is prudent to attack any of the major doctrines of a religion. It is alright to question those tenants in a respectful manner, but I do not have any sympathy for the Salman Rushdies of this world. They bring the trouble justifiably onto themselves.


Intentionally performing blasphemous and sacrilegious acts to twit and goad the faithful is rude and imprudent. However, people who perform such acts do NOT "bring the trouble justifiably onto themselves." Nor should we withhold our "sympathy" from them. That's ridiculous. Rude behavior is no excuse for murder, and suggesting otherwise constitutes blaming the victims. It's reasonable to suggest that we should all be respectful of others' fervent and deeply held beliefs; it's unreasonable to claim that if we are not, horrific crimes are "justified".


Here's Adam Gopnik writing about Charlie Hebdo for "The New Yorker":

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/satire-lives


Thank you for posting that link, Ecurb. It puts into context the asinine comments made by Pope Francis in reference to the Charlie Hebdo killings, in which he defended freedom of speech as a human right "but said it must not cause offense." (NPR), adding: "You cannot make provocations" and "You cannot insult people's faith."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/15/377493546/pope-backs-freedom-of-speech-but-within-limits

The Pope's comments are placed under a sharper focus by some of the points made in Gopnik's article:

[The murdered satirists] worked instead in a peculiarly French and savage tradition, forged in a long nineteenth-century guerrilla war between republicans and the Church and the monarchy.

***
Before Pope Francis' recent comments:

It is wonderful to see Pope Francis condemning the horror, but also worth remembering that magazine’s special Christmas issue, titled “The True Story of Baby Jesus,” whose cover bore a drawing of a startled Mary giving notably frontal birth to her child. (Did the Pope see it?)

***
Wolinski and his confederates represented the true Rabelaisian spirit of French civilization, in their acceptance of human appetite and their contempt for false high-mindedness of any kind, including the secular high-mindedness that liberal-minded people hold dear. The magazine was offensive to Jews, offensive to Muslims, offensive to Catholics, offensive to feminists, offensive to the right and to the left, while being aligned with it—offensive to everybody, equally.

***
I was amused to hear Pope Francis' doublethink parroted by a network news "anchor" who only a few days before had self-righteously explained to me that the worldwide reaction of horror to the killings was because "nothing is more important to democracy than journalism." Tonight, he assured me that the same sanctimonious tone that the Pope was merely stating "what everyone has been thinking." In other words, the time for pious hand-wringing is over and the ugly truth is wriggling out: satire will not be tolerated; not by militant extremists; not by normative western religion; and not by liberal western media (who will tell you exactly what "everyone has been thinking," thank you very much). Not real satire. If it can't be controlled, it won't be tolerated. This is an Ecumenism that John XXIII never dreamt of. Crazies of all stripes arm in arm. We are the world.

It is also a call to arms--to pens, to brushes, to keyboards. No one loves a satirist, not a real one. It is never going to be okay to say that the king is a fink--and mean it. It is never going to okay to say that there are some damned silly things about our religions--and mean it. It is never going to be okay to hold up a mirror to the media (everyone hates them anyway, they just won't report it). And that is to say nothing of Russia and China.

But as a skinny Woody Guthrie wannabe groaned many years ago: "the times they are a'changing." And this time, I suspect he may be onto something. I hear people on the left and right and middle say that they are not going to put up with PC anymore. It's not important that we all define PC as the other person's viewpoint: because the real point is that once you recognize that your political opposites are accepting prepackaged opinions handed down to them from on high--things that make them feel comfortable, or smart, or smug--it is only a matter of time until the virus of reason makes its way to your inner ear and whispers, "Oh yeah man, there's a lot of that going around."

And they're killing the satirists now, that's the pertinent point. They are all done not loving them and they have started actually wasting them. And the supposed defenders of human rights and Constitutional liberties have already started to equivocate.

JerryBaldy made a call a few posts back to stand up and be counted. Fine. Personally, I make a point of not satirizing individuals on a site like this. I have no desire to hurt people's feelings, and if I do hurt them, I apologize immediately. And that apology is sincere. And I will continue to respect the "check your politics at the door" policy of this site, which I believe to be a wise one. But as of this moment, Pope Francis (and others) are officially on-limits. Je suis Charlie. Nous sommes tous Charlie. It's only scary if you cower alone.


Allow me, virtuoso, to protest most vividly! If I understand you right, you hold Salman Rushdie responsible for the abominable death sentence a senile fascist leader in Iran launched against him (I say "fascist" because any regime based on religion is perforce fascist; in democracy you can refute, contradict, and fight with democratic means any law you don't like; in a religious regime, the base of society is a law written by God, thus indisputable, thus immutable, thus un- and antidemocratic). That's your right. And it's my right to think the very idea just as abominable as the silly fatwa itself. I haven't read a single book Mr. Rushdie has written, but I have all the sympathy of the world for him. Freedom of speech is not a mantra, it has nothing "so-called open-minded", it is never intemperate. Either one accepts freedom of speech (within the limits of national and international law, I insist on that point) or one does not. There's no in-between. As to the prudence of attacking a religion—the question is not whether it is prudent or not, but whether it is permitted and permissible or not. As luck would have it, blasphemy is not mentioned in French law. Therefore, you are allowed to say, sing, write, draw, yell blasphemy all day long. Why should one "question [religion] in a respectful manner"? 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. I know you wrote "religious doctrines" in one sentence and "tenants" in the next. The difference is absolute, and "Charlie" never mistook one for the other. They always mocked the doctrine, never made any attacks "ad hominem". Because you can insult a person; you cannot insult a belief, a philosophy, etc. In democracy, the only thing that should count is the democratically voted law. The rest belongs to your private sphere.


As for the rest, I wanted to say I'd like this thread to become a poetry-thread again. Otherwise, I'm quite afraid this site's mods might close it, which I would really find regrettable. If anyone wants to start a related thread in the General Discussion section, say, or the Philosophy section, I'd be the first to participate. I think there's a whole lot of things to discuss re. this issue, especially for us, who per definitionem, as readers and writers, are concerned by it. But please—if you want to comment on the poems already present in this thread, or if you want to share your own, related poem, be my guest. Otherwise, please, let's discuss the core subject in another section (and if anyone opens that thread, please share the link so that we can all move there and debate).

Thank you.


I agree Dieter that everybody should have the freedom of speech to say what they want. However, if you ridicule the devout, fervent disciple who is ready to die for his beliefs, then you are asking for it. Those who use satire to make a mockery of a deeply held belief system are not honorable in my view. I do not believe in using violence as a means to address even blasphemy, but some of the more fundamental Islamic and Christian sects have believed in it. All I am saying is that if you want to question their beliefs in a vitriolic, sacrilegious manner, then you deserve to live your life looking in the rear view mirror. You mock a lion, then you must expect him to act with rage. I did not mean to imply that any columnist or analyst deserved death, but they do deserve to live in a bit of fear.

[NikolaiI]

As for the thread, I am thinking it will fall under politics in all likelihood.

As for the debate - de-escalation should be the word of the day.


I remember Zen teacher Hanh talking about this type of thing. . he has some wonderful thoughts on how to achieve peace, by the way. In the talk he told about a seminar that they held for Israeli's and Palestinians.

I don't remember the whole thing in detail, but the general sum of it was, to get to share stories in a safe setting. . . to bring them together in a peaceful way. And from he said, it was fairly transformative. When each person understood that the other side was suffering deeply, they began to empathize with them as human beings, and in this way they were able to make progress towards peace.

[DieterM]

Thanks for joining in, NikolaiI. I don't think this can be considered "politics" in the way the Forum Rules define it; at least I hope it doesn't. We won't discuss French or US- or UK- policy, anyway. It's rather a general question, the question whether someone really thinks she/he IS Charlie or whether she/he only tries out the attitude of pretending to be. A rather fashionable attitude, I daresay, because even politicians I won't name and who are light years away from being Charlie have sported it last Sunday during the huge Paris gathering.

I guess I AM Charlie. Meaning that I've started reading the weekly the day I arrived in France. It's the only paper I read, besides the second national satirical weekly we have in this country (and we're more than lucky to have them both; both represent high-quality journalism with a slice of humour that doesn't respect any boundaries). More than once, I've looked at their covers, mouth open, whispering, "They haven't dared…!" And yet they had. Yes, Charlie has always been and will continue to be rude, of bad taste, respecting no one and nothing. And outrageously hilarious. It is a French tradition to think you can laugh of anything. One humorist said back in the 70s, "You can laugh about anything, but you can't do it with anyone." Meaning you can make fun of Jews (Jewish jokes have a long, long tradition all over Europe—most of the time, these were jokes invented by Jews, mocking Jews, and which made Jews laugh loudest) before a public that knows what you're laughing about. You can't make fun of Jews before a public of neo-Nazis. Another example: Cabu, one of the cartoonists killed last week, once drew a cartoon involving people with Down's syndrome. When someone asked him why he made fun of them, he answered, "Why, as a kid my best friend had Down's syndrome. You know I make fun of anyone and anything. By drawing that cartoon, I simply wanted to show I considered them as normal as anybody else."

The point I want to make is: those who think the Charlie cartoons are not funny, well, they have a very simple solution—they don't read them! And if someone thinks he's been insulted by a cartoon, well, he can always sue Charlie! People did quite often. French imams and bishops amongst them. They never won because you have the same right to ridicule religions than to mock any other ideology. And sometimes Charlie lost and apologized. If we step back from our rights, for which people have died in the past, we give up hope that things will get better little by little.

One last thing. The latest cover of Charlie showed the prophet, weeping, "Je suis Charlie" written over his chest, under the headline saying "All is forgiven". And people have protested! What is revolting, disturbing, unpeaceful about THAT, I ask? How can you discuss with someone who doesn't want to discuss? Who doesn't want to understand the message?

Sorry this is a bit of a mess. And a huge thanks to Pompey Bum for creating this thread.

[Ecurb]

I have never read Charlie Hebdo. Words and images can constitute "fighting words" (as they are described in U.S. law). In other words, they can be so inflammatory as to constitute an assault and excuse someone (legally and possibly morally) from fighting back. This seems reasonable. If someone says, "Your mother is a whore," there is no proper response other than walking away or punching the person.

In past centuries, insulting or inflammatory remarks might lead to a challenge and a duel. We have ceased the practice of dueling (a good change, don't you think?), but at least there was some honor involved in dueling. The person who was challenged could avoid the duel by apologizing, or refusing to accept the challenge (and being considered a coward). "Walking away" might include the "cut direct" -- refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other person when your ran across him socially.

One reasonable question is: What constitutes speech so insulting that it can be called "fighting words"? How about, "There is no God but Allah"? Would it be reasonable for Christians to consider that blasphemous and insulting?

Another question is, "What response is appropriate and proportional?" Even those who might punch someone for saying, "Your mother is a whore" probably consider shooting the person dead a disproportionate response.

virtuoso says, "You mock a lion, then you must expect him to act with rage." Isn't he comparing humans (the Muslim terrorists) to beasts? Mightn't some people consider this blasphemous and insulting? Does he "deserve to live... in fear" as a result of his remarks?

[NikolaiI]

No one deserves to live in fear, and the best thing we can do is to work to build a world where that's no longer necessary.

I'm reminded by this incident of something I read about Black Elk recently. I've known he was a medicine man, and I've always been interested the things he had to say. Recently I learned that he also, along with Lame Deer, became a Heyoka at some point. Heyoka is a sort of a sacred clown, or jester - the tradition is they often do or say things in a backwards way, to get people to look at things differently. Some of the things they will do is riding a horse backwards, or dress very warmly in winter and complain it is cold. . and, it's a sacred thing of the people, in the words of Lame Deer -

"For people who are as poor as us, who have lost everything, who had to endure so much death and sadness, laughter is a precious gift. When we were dying like flies from white man's disease, when we were driven into reservations, when the government rations did not arrive and we were starving, watching the pranks and capers of Heyókȟa were a blessing."

—John Fire Lame Deer[2] Heyoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka)


Principally, the heyókȟa functions both as a mirror and a teacher, using extreme behaviors to mirror others, thereby forcing them to examine their own doubts, fears, hatreds, and weaknesses. heyókȟas also have the power to heal emotional pain; such power comes from the experience of shame — they sing of shameful events in their lives, beg for food, and live as clowns. They provoke laughter in distressing situations of despair and provoke fear and chaos when people feel complacent and overly secure, to keep them from taking themselves too seriously or believing they are more powerful than they are.

But I find it a little different from Hebdo for a couple of reasons - primarily, because I believe laughter to be a good thing, but not really when it's used to laugh at people when they're down. Like - the way I see the role of this kind of person is to help things - I mean, help society and so forth. .

And it's complex times - we're too complacent about some things, and too fearful about others. It's honestly a mix about a lot of things - if we're going to save ourselves, we have to come to sanity on so many matters. . . take back power as people, not give it away to a stagnating culture, and that type of thing. . in many ways, things are upside down. . .

There are a lot of forces in the world today which try to teach people that they don't matter, for one, and that they're not free, for another - these are two of the basic essentials that individuals have to learn for themselves, for life to begin to be as it should be.

I'm touching on a lot of topics, I know.

I really do believe it's possible to see all these things clearly. . .I mean - as complex as humans are, we can understand them because we can know that they all have a lot of universals - pain, happiness, hopes, all of that - and we all have been in a place where we weren't feeling okay enough with ourselves and we lashed out. .

A self-realized person from any country will have a lot of similar qualities - they'll have peace, cheerfulness, ability to see things and understand things and people as they are, and a very good knack for how to do things well. Ah- yes, and one of the most important, such a self-realized person from any culture, won't be trying to control others. . .

Now - it isn't easy, sometimes, to understand other cultures. . . We're so very different in a lot of ways, but similar in others.

To understand that we're all suffering is useful - but that we all that the capacity for realization of the highest human achievements.

The only thing I really want to say is that peace is possible - we can work for it, and one of the most important things we need to realize is that we have power, we can take that power back, and use it for good - don't give it away and all that - but we have to know that it's possible to have peace with one another - I rather believe that idea is essential.

I don't have all the answers or anything, I just know that everyone can heal, and everyone can find peace - it starts within us, the individuals, and from us it can go to society.

Now - as for understanding cultures - it's not easy for us who grew up in France, or North America, or many other places perhaps, to understand, but for most Muslims - and this is the ones who would never in a million years resort to violence to try to express their feelings, as well as people who unfortunately do - even if we are broadcasting a positive message, such as All is Forgiven - for them, images of their prophet are something that causes them pain - it doesn't matter if the image is a positive one, or a negative one, although I am sure negative ones are worse - but even a positive one, saying let us be friends and forgive, is painful to them because it is an image -

Now - I am not saying there are not real issues, in a lot of places, especially Muslim countries, that need to be addressed - very much so there are. But I've seen so much pain - wars caused by division, by people giving up their freedom to think for themselves, giving up their power, largely based on the edifices of division and reactivity and this sort of thing.

[Ecurb]

It's sad, NikolaiI. It is precisely BECAUSE religion is so important to people that it makes a good subject for art. Serrano's "Piss Christ" wouldn't be as moving with a less freighted and iconic image. https://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html

It seems to me the motive of the artist and the quality of the art are significant. If ALL some artist wants to do is insult and enrage religious people, that's pretty rude. That's why, "Your mother is a whore" constitutes fighting words: the ONLY reason to say it is as a challenge. In a way, challenges deserve (or at least can be fairly met with) an acceptance of the challenge. If the motive for blasphemy is provocation, that's rude, and a challenge, just like other provocations.

On the other hand, if the art is beautiful (as is the case with "Piss Christ"), or if the symbolism is trenchant, or if the meaning is intellectually as well as politically provocative, we can (I think) excuse the rudeness. Some things are worth being rude about; others are not.

(In either event, of course, the artist shouldn't have to fear being mowed down for his rudeness. A more appropriate response would be to refuse to buy his work, or to refuse to speak to him if introduced, or maybe even call him by a rude name, like "dweeb".)

[Pompey Bum]

And a huge thanks to Pompey Bum for creating this thread.

Oh you are welcome, Dieter.


I don't think this can be considered "politics" in the way the Forum Rules define it

Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal. I applauded you for envisioning this thread. As you say, there is much to discuss.


It's rather a general question, the question whether someone really thinks she/he IS Charlie or whether she/he only tries out the attitude of pretending to be. A rather fashionable attitude, I daresay, because even politicians I won't name and who are light years away from being Charlie have sported it last Sunday during the huge Paris gathering.

I observe that the slogan has energized many, but that it may mean quite different things to different parties. In some cases there may be an element of hypocrisy or political opportunism. The slogan's appeal may be self-serving, as with the journalist I mentioned, explaining that "Je suis Charlie" was a popular mandate for protecting journalism (but soon after equivocated on the underlying issue of free speech). For an American neo-conservative, it may mean: "Okay French people, let's go fight radical Islam together!" For PEGIDA, it may mean: "Let's get Muslims the hell out of Europe!" For many people, it was simply a humane statement of sympathy to the French people in the face of a national tragedy. You have said that the for you, the pertinent issues are rights and progress: "If we step back from our rights, for which people have died in the past, we give up hope that things will get better little by little." For me, it is because I refuse to surrender the option of over-the-top satire (as you say "humour that doesn't respect any boundaries ") as a moral response to the rejection of reason and/or good will, particularly in the face of violent intimidation. I may choose to refrain, but I will not surrender that choice to murderers (or anyone else). That is why I stand with the satirists of Charlie Hebdo. That is why je suis Charlie.

So my first point is that the appearance of solidarity is to some extent illusory. My second is that things are going to get messy now. I continue to see Catholic attempts to distance the Church from sympathy for Charlie Hebdo. Despite neo-conservative aspirations, there's no current mandate for a return to war (thank God). Xenophobic groups like PEGIDA are nothing but trouble. And rude, honest people like me are never very popular. So where does that leave "rights, for which people have died in the past" and "hope that things will get better little by little"? I don't doubt that things will get better in time. But I suspect they are going to get a lot worse before that. Moral pessimists (like me) have a credo: "The truth will set you free. But first it will make you miserable."

What can be done for now? Honest talk here and now is important. I am always shocked at how many hundreds of people read the silly things I write on the threads here. It is important, despite our differences, for us to articulate a common ground upon which good men and women may stand together: We are not afraid. Might, even that of "lions," does not make right. And we don't give a damn if we've got your sympathy or not. That's a good start.

[AuntShecky]

It's one thing to fight for free speech -- which is what everyone should do but few have enough courage to do so.

It's quite another to consider free speech "trendy," which is what some Hollywood types did at The Golden Globe awards last week. (These were probably the same Selfie enthusiasts from last summer who gleefully allowed buckets of ice water to be dumped on their heads, ostensibly to elicit donations against a disease, but let's face it,couldn't pass up another trendy photo opp.) But on the latest Red Carpet event they were emblazoning "Je suis Charlie" on their designer handbags or pinned to their tux lapels, as if they'd actually been present in that Paris office the day of the attack. I'd be very surprised to learn that these celebs actually had ever heard of the French weekly, let alone subscribed to the magazine or had even read it. "Je suis Charlie": --this from rich and privileged residents of a company town where one of the main employers, a massive studio, nearly allowed itself to follow the dictates of a foreign power which allegedly spearheaded cyber attacks and threats of violence against the procuction company to block the release of a movie which satirized the leader of that oppressive regime.

Llke many Americans, I only learned of the existence of the publication when the horrifying news broke; I'd feel like a damned hypocrite if I implied otherwise. Even so, I can only admire the heroism of those Parisian cartoonists and writers who literally gave their lives for their work. The thing is-- my fellow NitLetters, either you support free speech or you don't. There's no namby-pamby half-way fence sitting. On a recent tv show I heard Salman Rushie say that the danger is in saying "I support free speech but--" There really can't be any "buts" about it. We're not talking about The Supreme Court Justice's distinction of "yeliing fire in a crowded theatre;" we are talking about political and social discourse, art and literature. You can say "x" but you can't say "y," because that will offend somebody. But how does one determine what exactly "x" and "y" are? Who has the authority to rule on what can be expressed and what cannot? That's the problem with drawing lines, by adding "buts."

If you want to say or write what you want, you have to let others with opposing views say it as well. If the political views of a slated college commencement speaker clash with yours, why not let him talk? If his thoughts are as bad as you say, then none of the graduates will agree with him anyway. It doesn't matter if a radio talk show host spews stupidity or hate. Let it get aired out. Once the world gets a whiff, folks will smell it for the garbage that it is. This is where you step in -- present your alternative ideas in engaging, expressive, convincing ways.

It also helps to have an educated public, having evolved into listeners and viewers who at least have been taught rudimentary critical thinking skills. Satire and ridicule can be effective for shining a spotlight upon the darkness. A big problem is that it takes intelligence, not just from the writer but also the audience. For instance, Americans are especially literal-minded.

It also requires fearlessness. As one of the surviving editors said on a later newscast, "They [the murderers] can kill us, but they can't kill our ideas." I sure as hell wish I could be that brave.

Speaking of the survivors, we all know what happened almost immediately after the crime. The paper went straight back into producing the next issue,this time with unprecedented circulation numbers in the millions. Unlike the aforementioned Hollywood types, and unlike yours fooly, the staff at Charlie Hedbo have balls.

Can I say "balls" or will it be censored? See what I mean?

[Clopin]

There already is no such thing as free speech in most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada where things like "hate speech' (if you believe in hate speech laws don't bother talking to me) and holocaust denial or revisionism can result in prison sentences of up to a decade or more; so really you're all fooling yourselves if you think free speech actually exists when there are actual LAWS against it.

"Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal."

So 'Je suis David Irving' is not a campaign because why? Because what is offensive to Jews is illegal and what is offensive to Muslims is not?

Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammad drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.

[Emil Miller]

There already is no such thing as free speech in most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada where things like "hate speech' (if you believe in hate speech laws don't bother talking to me) and holocaust denial or revisionism can result in prison sentences of up to a decade or more; so really you're all fooling yourselves if you think free speech actually exists when there are actual LAWS against it.

"Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal."

So 'Je suis David Irving' is not a campaign because why? Because what is offensive to Jews is illegal and what is offensive to Muslims is not?

Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammed drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.

Well said. I can remember a time when people were allowed to say and write what they liked except in the case of personal attacks which, quite rightly, were dealt with through the laws of slander and libel. Then the liberal element ( I'm being polite here ) came out from under their stones in the wake of WWII and
began to impose their view of what could and could not be said or written.
It is an interesting thought that Voltaire has seen his most famous dictum ( I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ) trampled into the dust by the very people who once championed him as an example of liberal rectitude.

[Pompey Bum]

"Certainly there is no conflict. It is an important issue to all of us when written expression is met with violent attempts at intimidation and reprisal." [--Pompey Bum]

Ideally I should be able to call every holocaust survivor a lying conspirator in public before drawing a picture of Muhammed drinking his own piss without incurring any legal trouble OR being beheaded. Today I would possibly be jailed for doing so.

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).

[NikolaiI]

Nevermind, all my main points were in my previous post.

[Ecurb]

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.

[NikolaiI]

One of the problems with the world is that the things we're taught to be right are the things we've been persuaded to believe are right. . In other words, who wins the persuasion war. I'm rather against it in almost all its forms, to be honest.

No one's trying force anyone to believe in peace, to work for peace, but I would say - working for peace is better.

[Emil Miller]

It is a complicated subject and the law can be quite nebulous in dealing with alleged violations of free speech.
The crux of the matter is how it is defined and, notwithstanding my earlier post, there have been, over time, obscenity laws of varying degree of severity.
However, there is a very great difference between banning pornographic publications of children for example: which only the depraved would support, and laws that try to force everyone to walk around on eggshells over the mention of Jews, Palestinians, Romanians, blacks, Chinese, Uncle Tom Cobley and all on grounds of incitement to racial hatred which is the situation pertaining in the UK today and is, in many people’s view, a direct attack on free speech.
With regard to copyright, I think there is a case to be made for abandoning or restricting it although where documentation regarding patents was concerned, it would have to be protected.
A more insidious form of interference with free speech is so-called political correctness that tries to inhibit a person’s right to say what may be unfounded or a generalisation but its expression is nevertheless a basic human right. People should be allowed to decide for themselves the level of ‘self-censorship’ they wish to exercise in their daily lives rather than have it imposed by the holier than thou or control freaks.
When I was a young man, I had a group of friends who would meet regularly for drinks and when any of us bought a round we would raise our glasses with the words: ‘Cheers Queers’. It wasn't aimed at homosexuals in particular or in general; it was just an example free speech.

[Pompey Bum]

@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.

[Clopin]

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.

[Clopin]

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.

[Pompey Bum]

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. :)

[Clopin]

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.

[Ecurb]

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.

[Clopin]

Honestly that entire post is really, really stupid and I feel dumber for having read it.

[Ecurb]

I agree, Clopin. You do seem to be getting dumber. I suppose anything is possible, even that.

[Clopin]

"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?

[virtuoso]

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).

[virtuoso]

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.

[Clopin]

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.

[Delta40]

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?

[Clopin]

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.

[Delta40]

if you think absolute free speech poses no risk to the safety of others, fine.

[Clopin]

Please don't vote.

[mona amon]

Driving while drunk poses a serious threat to the safety of others... come on this really isn't hard.

Looking at things in a simplistic, black and white way is not really hard. But reality is neither black and white nor simple. The world isn't made up of only reasonable people who know where their rights end and other people's begin, or of people who will never be swayed into rampaging and rioting by a silver-tongued orator or rabble-rousing demagogue. Now I am very much for freedom of speech and expression and against extreme Political Correctness and was very saddened by what happened to Charlie Hebdo, but if you really think speech never poses a threat to the safety of others, I think you are ignoring several aspects of reality.

[Clopin]

"The world isn't made up of only reasonable people who know where their rights end and other people's begin"

Yes well that's why we have the rule of law to protect people from things like slander and copyright infringement. And to protect people from rioters and rampagers.

"Now I am very much for freedom of speech and expression"

Is this one of those "I'm not a racist... but' moments? I mean you're for freedom of speech but your argument is that freedom of speech poses a serious threat to the safety of others?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom+of+speech

Here's a dictionary definition for freedom of speech and yes, it is all or nothing. You either support this concept or you support regulated speeh, with limitations and restrictions determined by the government which can see dissenters serving jail time (as currently happens in the absolute vast majority of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) What I really don't understand is why everyone claims to support freedom of speech and then immediately turns around and says "oh.. but not 'too' free, that would be bad and dangerous, you never know what would happen, there need to be lots of restrictions" ; now I'm no linguist but I'm pretty sure 'restricted' and 'free' have pretty much opposite meanings.

If this is your position just admit you don't agree with the fundamental concept of freedom of speech, no need to pretend otherwise, it's not like you can fool anyone.

[mona amon]

Yeah all we have to do is lock up the rampagers and rioters and what a wonderful place the world would be. Wonder why no one has thought of this simple solution to the problem.


"Now I am very much for freedom of speech and expression"

Is this one of those "I'm not a racist... but' moments? I mean you're for freedom of speech but your argument is that freedom of speech poses a serious threat to the safety of others?

Of course not. More like, "I'm not a racist, but there are other people who are." Acknowledging that there are racists does not mean I have to stop being a non-racist. Acknowledging that there are people who misuse their freedom of speech to harm others does not mean that I think freedom of speech is not a good thing worth fighting for.

You are just being naïve if you refuse to acknowledge that free speech can be used to cause harm.

[Iain Sparrow]

Yeah all we have to do is lock up the rampagers and rioters and what a wonderful place the world would be. Wonder why no one has thought of this simple solution to the problem.

Of course not. More like, "I'm not a racist, but there are other people who are." Acknowledging that there are racists does not mean I have to stop being a non-racist. Acknowledging that there are people who misuse their freedom of speech to harm others does not mean that I think freedom of speech is not a good thing worth fighting for.

You are just being naïve if you refuse to acknowledge that free speech can be used to cause harm.


Freedom of Speech and Expression in America, for all the debate and all the people who question its limits, is dead simple. We have precious few laws restricting the exercise of those core individual rights. Pretty much anything goes.

When you state, "there are people who misuse their freedom of speech", you've placed a potentially dangerous addendum to Freedom of Speech. I've seen how European countries pander to political correctness, that having a civil society is worth giving up some personal freedoms. It's not, it's a slippery slope that thus far, and thankfully so, America has avoided.

When you truly cherish something as important as Free Speech, you must embrace it all the more when it offends you.

[Delta40]

Please don't vote.

Alas it's compulsory where I am :-)

[Iain Sparrow]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom+of+speech

Here's a dictionary definition for freedom of speech and yes, it is all or nothing. You either support this concept or you support regulated speeh, with limitations and restrictions determined by the government which can see dissenters serving jail time (as currently happens in the absolute vast majority of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) What I really don't understand is why everyone claims to support freedom of speech and then immediately turns around and says "oh.. but not 'too' free, that would be bad and dangerous, you never know what would happen, there need to be lots of restrictions" ; now I'm no linguist but I'm pretty sure 'restricted' and 'free' have pretty much opposite meanings.

If this is your position just admit you don't agree with the fundamental concept of freedom of speech, no need to pretend otherwise, it's not like you can fool anyone.

I think the problem is that some people don't like it when things get nasty and violent, they want a sort of well behaved, responsible use of Free Speech and Expression. Perhaps they've watched one too many episodes of Downton Abbey, or the population is aging, who the hell knows... that is not what Freedom of Speech guarantees, not peace and tranquility, or a civil society where we all just get along with one another.

And let us be honest here, most Americans aren't caught up in such lofty ideals...

We who officially value freedom of speech above life itself seem to have nothing to talk about but the weather.
-Barbara Ehrenreich

[Delta40]

Freedom of Speech and Expression in America, for all the debate and all the people who question its limits, is dead simple. We have precious few laws restricting the exercise of those core individual rights. Pretty much anything goes.

When you state, "there are people who misuse their freedom of speech", you've placed a potentially dangerous addendum to Freedom of Speech. I've seen how European countries pander to political correctness, that having a civil society is worth giving up some personal freedoms. It's not, it's a slippery slope that thus far, and thankfully so, America has avoided.

When you truly cherish something as important as Free Speech, you must embrace it all the more when it offends you.


Yes but for all that, free speech is still restricted in the US. A miss is as good as a mile and it is not free speech by the definition supplied by clopin. So the society as close as possible to 100% is the winner?

[Iain Sparrow]

Alas it's compulsory where I am :-)

ah-ha!
You're government is trampling your right to not vote.

That's why America is the best place ever; we let 15% of the population run the country... then have the audacity to complain about it.:)


Yes but for all that, free speech is still restricted in the US. A miss is as good as a mile and it is not free speech by the definition supplied by clopin. So the society as close as possible to 100% is the winner?

Oh no, you can say just about anything here, short of there being a reasonable expectation of immediate violence (riot), anything goes. We have Neo-Nazi organizations, the KKK, all matter of riffraff that get to say whatever they want, even have parades and picnics out in the open. We have one very conservative christian group that sometimes shows up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers, and protests with signs and slogans, that because America is becoming more accepting of gays that their son or daughter deserved to die. Their free speech rights were upheld by our courts.

[mona amon]

When you state, "there are people who misuse their freedom of speech", you've placed a potentially dangerous addendum to Freedom of Speech.

Hey, don't make me the bad guy here, passionately pro human rights as I am! Just to be clear, I never said anything about limiting free speech for any reason. If I said "there are people who misuse their freedom of speech to harm others", it was for no other reason but to state a simple truth, which some people just refuse to acknowledge.

[Delta40]

ah-ha!
You're government is trampling your right to not vote.

That's why America is the best place ever; we let 15% of the population run the country... then have the audacity to complain about it.:)

Lol. I can handle the obligation. Billionaire or homeless, parties rely heavily on the people.

[DieterM]

I admit I have what you called "holy cows", Clopin, in one of your posts. I admit I do support certain limitations such as anti-revisionism laws. It's a very personal thing, see. First of all, I'm Austrian, and as such, I was raised Catholic. Even if I'd say I'm agnostic since age 14, I know I have a guilt-issue (which is very Catholic, go beat me). Don't worry—I'm working on it. Most bad things, I now realize, are NOT my fault ;-)

Anyway, even if I was born in 1972 and have had no hand whatsoever in what happened during WWII, even if one of my granddads was nearly killed by the Nazis for being a communist, I feel guilt for the death of millions of innocent people. And I personally feel sick whenever someone tries to deny the existence and use of gas chambers or the personal implication of Nazi officials. If that's how you define "Holy Cow", Clopin, I do admit I have one. Maybe this is related to my naive view of what democracy is supposed to do. In my eyes, it's meant, amongst other things, to defend those who are weak against the (perforce stronger) majority. Now who is weaker than a dead person? A body can't defend itself. Someone else has got to do it. If needs be, the law. This doesn't only concern Jews, gipsies, gays, communists and other victims of the Nazi era. This concerns all those Africans who've been shipped to another continent in order to work and die as slaves for rich landowners as well, for instance. It concerns many areas where historical evidence has made clear that people have suffered and been killed for reasons not related to war.

What I mean to say is yes, I do support the existence of such a law in France. But I've always been a patient listener, I always try to look at things from as many different ides as I can find. So I could be convinced by strong arguments that I'm wrong. Btw, if you want, go on and treat me as one who is against freedom of speech. I won't ever deny you the right to do that. Anyone can spit on my beliefs, be my guests. You may even insult me—I've been raised to become a person who's much too polite for my own good, so I think I won't even counter-insult you ;-) LOL

Anyway, large parts of the debate in this thread are fueled by passionate ideas. I've seen some glimpses of "Charlie-esque" humour, though, which I found most reassuring (Ian Sparrow, your "ah-ha! You're government is trampling your right to not vote. That's why America is the best place ever; we let 15% of the population run the country... then have the audacity to complain about it." really made me giggle—btw that description sounds a lot like France to me). For me, to be Charlie is to question myself again and again. And to laugh about myself.

[Delta40]

Oh no, you can say just about anything here, short of there being a reasonable expectation of immediate violence (riot), anything goes. We have Neo-Nazi organizations, the KKK, all matter of riffraff that get to say whatever they want, even have parades and picnics out in the open. We have one very conservative christian group that sometimes shows up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers, and protests with signs and slogans, that because America is becoming more accepting of gays that their son or daughter deserved to die. Their free speech rights were upheld by our courts.

We endure the Australian Defence League and Neo Nazis who exercise free speech. Our Attorney General pointed out that people have a right to be bigots and it's absolutely true. They distribute hate flyers in mailboxes across the country. SM is rife with the stuff. So what if speech offends and so how unsurprising if violence is a consequence? Yes if I cherish free speech I can stand innocent people being gunned down. Charlie Hebdo was free to exercise provocative material. This is a reprehensible act and not a justification and we can expect it to happen again

I thought Snowden opened our eyes to just how much free speech we really have.

[Pompey Bum]

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?

With all due respect, Delta, that's a terrible analogy. "Free" driving is not a civil or human right as free speech is. One has to be licensed to drive, freely agreeing to abide by certain governmentally enforced legal restrictions such as stopping at red lights, not speeding, and not driving drunk. By contrast, a free society does not license free speech, because unlike driving, free speech is a fundamental right of a free society. The individual does not voluntarily agree have his or her freedom legally restricted as the driver does. That does not mean that an individual doesn't voluntarily restrict speech (I do it all the time), but in a free society, it is the individual who makes that call, not the government.

[Pompey Bum]

if you really think speech never poses a threat to the safety of others, I think you are ignoring several aspects of reality.

Certainly free speech can pose a threat to safety. It is often necessary for the free individual to choose to restrict speech for the safety of others. There was a case a few years ago when the Pope (I don't think it was Pope Francis, but his predecessor, Pope Joseph A. Ratzinger "Eggs" Benedict XVI) had made some strong comments against violent Muslim extremism. Some whack job in Somalia responded by seizing and savaging a number of Catholic nuns. (I'm sorry that I don't recall the incident better, but it was some time ago). In any case, the Pope did the right thing (in my opinion) and dropped the rhetoric rather than saying, as he would probably have preferred, "I will not be intimidated for by your barbarism." In that case, he made the call that protecting nuns under his leadership took priority over speaking out in the way he had been doing, at least for a time. It was a judgement call. But it was his.

You are also right that free speech itself can incite violence and trouble. But it can also quell it. And it can teach. Unfortunately or fortunately free speech means just that. The voice of injustice will be heard right along with its opposite. And it's not a safe world. Some will hear calls to violence and respond violently. Others will hear the same calls and work against them. The world becomes no safer a place because the right of the individual to speak freely is impeded. On the other hand, history suggests that governmental attempts to mandate "good" speech lead to even greater injustices. I would once have been tortured (if not burned alive) for my puerile crack about "Eggs" Benedict. And there are still places where equivalent comments bring similar results.

Where free speech is concerned, it is the individual who must be responsible. But that very often requires the free and fearless exercise of free speech.

[Clopin]

I admit I have what you called "holy cows", Clopin, in one of your posts. I admit I do support certain limitations such as anti-revisionism laws.

You support jail sentences for people who do historical research that you find unsettling? Nice to see fascism is alive and well in our hearts and minds. By the way, I feel about as sick about your position on this issue as you might if I were to tell you that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Also you can stop telling yourself or anyone else that you support freedom of speech. You do not. You can not suport freedom of speech except in every single instance of expression. So holocaust denial makes you sick? So what? What makes you so important that the legal system needs to be based around jailing people who 'make you sick'? Depictions of the prophet Muhammad make a billion people sick, homosexuality makes many people sick! So what? Kindly begin honestly referring to yourself as someone who believes in restricted speech.



Oh no, you can say just about anything here, short of there being a reasonable expectation of immediate violence (riot), anything goes. We have Neo-Nazi organizations, the KKK, all matter of riffraff that get to say whatever they want, even have parades and picnics out in the open. We have one very conservative christian group that sometimes shows up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers, and protests with signs and slogans, that because America is becoming more accepting of gays that their son or daughter deserved to die. Their free speech rights were upheld by our courts.

Good.

And to Mona, and others perpetuating that hideous 'freedom is bad because it means we might come to harm' argument, get a bloody grip. I cut myself while chopping an onion last week, it hurt, should the government ban all kitchen knives in favour of plastic ones? I live in a mountainous region, I occasionally climb these moutains, I could fall and die, people have died before. Should I be wrapped in plastic and pushed up the hill by government workers? It would be safer that way.

[Clopin]

Certainly free speech can pose a treat to safety. It is often necessary for the free individual to choose to restrict speech for the safety of others. There was a case a few years ago when the Pope (I don't think it was pope Francis, but his predecessor, Pope Joseph A. Ratzinger "Eggs" Benedict XVI) had made some strong comments against violent Muslim extremism. Some whack job in Somalia responded by seizing and savaging a number of Catholic nuns. (I'm sorry that I don't recall the incident better, but it was some time ago). In any case, the Pope did the right thing (in my opinion) and dropped the rhetoric rather than saying, as he would probably have preferred, "I will not be intimidated for by your barbarism." In that case, he made the call that protecting the nuns under his leadership took priority over speaking out in the way he had, at that time. It was a judgement call. But it was his.

You are also right that free speech itself can incite violence and trouble. But it can also quell it. And it can teach. Unfortunately or fortunately free speech means just that. The voice of injustice will be heard right along with its opposite. And it's not a safe world. Some will hear calls to violence and respond violently. Others will hear the same calls and work against them. The world becomes no safer a place because the right of the individual to speak freely is impeded. On the other hand, history suggests that governmental attempts to control "good" speech lead to even greater injustices. I would once have been tortured if not burned alive for my puerile crack about "Eggs" Benedict. And there are still places where equivalent comments would bring similar results.

Where free speech is concerned, it is the individual who must be responsible. But that very often requires the free and fearless exercise of free speech.

Yes, but for some stupid reason people often claim self censorship as some sort of contradiction of free speech.

Everything you said is right of course.

[mona amon]

And to Mona, and others perpetuating that hideous 'freedom is bad because it means we might come to harm' argument, get a bloody grip.

Now this is getting really annoying. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I said freedom is something worth fighting for, even though people do often use this freedom to harm others. I also said you were naïve for not acknowledging that speech can cause harm. I've never implied that freedom was a bad thing - really, how ridiculous is that?

[Clopin]

Now this is getting really annoying. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I said freedom is something worth fighting for, even though people do often use this freedom to harm others. I also said you were naïve for not acknowledging that speech can cause harm. I've never implied that freedom was a bad thing - really, how ridiculous is that?

The 'freedom of speech causes harm' is an argument that I've seen very, very often and pretty much always comes with a call for censorship which is nearly always accompanied by these same people inevitably pulling out the "I believe in free speech, or i defend free speech, or free speech is important... but only if it's limited" bull**** rhetoric. All of this caused me to assume that you were one of those people, who are by the way a very strong majority (as even this thread indicates) and if you aren't then I apologize. I haven't, at least, seen you call for any censorship yet and you're making it pretty clear that you aren't advocating restrictions, so I'm sorry.

[Ecurb]

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....

.

I'll make it real simple. Your right to protect your writing or speech with a copyright ends as soon as it directly infringes my right to freedom of speech (which a copyright ALWAYS does). This reasoning, Clopin, is identical to your own, as you might have been able to figure out BEFORE reading my post, which, according to your own account, made you "dumber" (sic).

Rights (including both copyright and the right to freedom of speech) always impinge on the (potential) rights of others. That doesn't mean we should abandon the rule of law or the concept of human rights (although, clearly, all laws restrict freedom, as do all "rights"). However, it does mean that we should try to discuss "rights" rationally and accurately, which you appear to resist. All individual "Rights" are neither more nor less than legal (or moral) obligations on the part of other people and society. All obligations restrict freedom (if you are "obliged" to do something, you are not "free" to do otherwise). This is obvious and self-affirming. The inferences we can draw from this are less clear.

Since you support copyrights, Clopin, you clearly agree with others that it's reasonable to restrict the right to freedom of speech. Now it's just a matter of hashing our the details. You appear to think it's reasonable to restrict freedom of speech to make money; others think it's reasonable to restrict freedom of speech to protect people from bullying and abuse. Neither position is a pure "free speech" position.

[Clopin]

I'll make it real simple. Your right to protect your writing or speech with a copyright ends as soon as it directly infringes my right to freedom of speech (which a copyright ALWAYS does). This reasoning, Clopin, is identical to your own, as you might have been able to figure out BEFORE reading my post, which, according to your own account, made you "dumber" (sic).

Rights (including both copyright and the right to freedom of speech) always impinge on the (potential) rights of others. That doesn't mean we should abandon the rule of law or the concept of human rights (although, clearly, all laws restrict freedom, as do all "rights"). However, it does mean that we should try to discuss "rights" rationally and accurately, which you appear to resist. All individual "Rights" are neither more nor less than legal (or moral) obligations on the part of other people and society. All obligations restrict freedom (if you are "obliged" to do something, you are not "free" to do otherwise). This is obvious and self-affirming. The inferences we can draw from this are less clear.

Since you support copyrights, Clopin, you clearly agree with others that it's reasonable to restrict the right to freedom of speech. Now it's just a matter of hashing our the details. You appear to think it's reasonable to restrict freedom of speech to make money; others think it's reasonable to restrict freedom of speech to protect people from bullying and abuse. Neither position is a pure "free speech" position.

I answered this in another post, you could reply to it. Your argument in short is that I, as a man am not free to rape any woman I encounter and therefore the notion that we live in a 'free' society is self defeating. I think this is pretty ridiculous, but I'm sure it's not the stupidest thing you've said today.

[Pompey Bum]

It is the question of how far can a civilized culture will go, before saying to the provocateurs that enough is enough.

So was it "civilized culture" that attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market? And were those atrocities were provoked (presumably by the magazine's cartoons of Mohammad)? But the murderers were already militant jihadists who had received terrorist training before the picture was even drawn. And they were in illegal possession of assault rifles and and plenty of ammo. Do you really think they were on their way to shoot skeet when they happened to pick up a copy of their favorite humor mag? Charlie Hebdo was a target of opportunity, and the kosher market was one of abject Jew hatred. If it hadn't been those targets, it would have been others--the Louvre, the Metro, other kosher markets, synagogues, whatever. As long as it made other dumb killers feel like they were winning.

But I'm a little slow, as I'm sure you've noticed, so would you please explain to me how exactly those murdered at the kosher market had provoked anything?

These were not crimes of provocation. They were crimes of stupidity and brutality. "Civilized culture" had nothing to do with it.

[mona amon]

The 'freedom of speech causes harm' is an argument that I've seen very, very often and prety much always comes with a call for censorship which is nearly always accompanied by these same people inevitably pulling out the "I believe in free speech, or i defend free speech, or free speech is important... but only if it's limited" bull**** rhetoric. All of this caused me to assume that you were one of those people, who are by the way a very strong majority (as even this thread indicates) and if you aren't then I apologize. I haven't, at least, seen you call for any censorship yet and you're making it pretty clear that you aren't advocating restrictions, so I'm sorry.

Apology accepted. :cheers2: I do agree with you about "limited free speech" being a contradiction in terms.

[Clopin]

:3

It's doublethink right out of Orwell.

[DieterM]

You support jail sentences for people who do historical research that you find unsettling? Nice to see fascism is alive and well in our hearts and minds.

Wow! Breathe, honey, and cool down! Lemme say that it's nice to see politeness is alive and well in our hearts and minds, too.

And nice to see you reacted just the way I had predicted you would. I haven't found evidence of any "historical research" in the works of revisionists so far. Did my share of historical research, yes, ma'am; it was a huge part of my university curriculum. As was research on extreme right-wing movements. We Europeans tend to be a bit touchy re. that subject—you won't believe it, but we tried out a couple of extreme right-wing regimes here in Europe. I've seen quite a lot of yelling "freedom of speech!" from extreme right-wingers, who more often than not tend to defend regimes who'd wipe their bums with freedom of speech and flush it down the toilet.

I pointed out that my position could change, and possibly would, if you gave me solid arguments. All I've got so far is a passionate-violent reaction. I guess you're the first one to call me a fascist, too. So be it, I've seen worse. As a gay guy, I've been called so many charming names that I could possibly fill a notebook with them.

And to think that the whole debate started with the death of journalists working for Charlie Hebdo… Who were, after what I've read and heard these last days, easy-going, anti-violent lads with a strong, wicked sense of humour ("humour"—dunno if you know what that means; you can google it, it needs be, hon). They never lashed out against persons, always against doctrines. As soon as freedom of speech or any other idea is transformed from an idea into an ideology, I get goose-pumps. No go beat me again :-)

[Clopin]

Wow! Breathe, honey, and cool down! Lemme say that it's nice to see politeness is alive and well in our hearts and minds, too.

And nice to see you reacted just the way I had predicted you would. I haven't found evidence of any "historical research" in the works of revisionists so far. Did my share of historical research, yes, ma'am; it was a huge part of my university curriculum. As was research on extreme right-wing movements. We Europeans tend to be a bit touchy re. that subject—you won't believe it, but we tried out a couple of extreme right-wing regimes here in Europe. I've seen quite a lot of yelling "freedom of speech!" from extreme right-wingers, who more often than not tend to defend regimes who'd wipe their bums with freedom of speech and flush it down the toilet.

I pointed out that my position could change, and possibly would, if you gave me solid arguments. All I've got so far is a passionate-violent reaction. I guess you're the first one to call me a fascist, too. So be it, I've seen worse. As a gay guy, I've been called so many charming names that I could possibly fill a notebook with them.

And to think that the whole debate started with the death of journalists working for Charlie Hebdo… Who were, after what I've read and heard these last days, easy-going, anti-violent lads with a strong, wicked sense of humour ("humour"—dunno if you know what that means; you can google it, it needs be, hon). They never lashed out against persons, always against doctrines. As soon as freedom of speech or any other idea is transformed from an idea into an ideology, I get goose-pumps. No go beat me again :-)

No, I made an argument, you just didn't bother responding to it, you instead focused entirely on my tone and impoliteness. I don't need to convince you that holocaust revisionists are correct in their historical methods or research, whether they are right or wrong is totally irrelevant to their being allowed to voice their ideas on the subject.

Also I don't know where that 'thumbs up' emote came from, or how to get rid of it.

[DieterM]

Also I don't know where that 'thumbs up' emote came from, or how to get rid of it.
Now this made me smile :-) I know it hasn't got anything to do with our discussion, but—it made me smile. And that's always a nice thing in one's life.

[Clopin]

Now this made me smile :-) I know it hasn't got anything to do with our discussion, but—it made me smile. And that's always a nice thing in one's life.

Well if I don't 'accidentally' thumbs up my own posts who will?

[DieterM]

Oh, and when I said I supported anti-revisionism laws, I told you why. I did that to show you that it's a gut-reaction. Which, as all gut-reactions, is a silly one, and I said so. You brandishing the 'You're just a fascist"-argument kind of made me blind to the whole rest.

[Pompey Bum]

Well if I don't 'accidentally' thumbs up my own posts who will?

Well I might from time to time, Clopin. IMO you should marry a nice Yankee lady and move down here. We could use more folks who understand about the primacy of free speech.

Anyway, call me when the group hug comes. My wife will call 911 if I start hugging myself. :)

[Clopin]

Oh, and when I said I supported anti-revisionism laws, I told you why. I did that to show you that it's a gut-reaction. Which, as all gut-reactions, is a silly one, and I said so. You brandishing the 'You're just a fascist"-argument kind of made me blind to the whole rest.

Well that's quite unfortunate as I made a pretty fair argument against this sort of 'gut reaction, censor censor' approach to free speech. Free speech by the way is something you do not support. You are gay, many many people have a negative gut reaction when they see gay pride parades or public displays of homosexuality, should these things be made illegal? How about if the majority of people had this 'gut reaction' to displays of homosexuality, as they do in Europe regarding holocaust revisionism and they do in the Arab world regarding blasphemy? Should it then be made illegal?

Anyway if you refuse to actually read my arguments then I will stop making them.

[Clopin]

Well I might from time to time, Clopin. IMO you should marry a nice Yankee lady and move down here. We could use more folks who understand about the primacy of free speech.

Anyway, call me when the group hug comes. My wife will call 911 if I start hugging myself. :)

Ha, well I do have plenty of issues with present day America, though I admit to unabashed admiration for your revolution and the founding tenents of the U.S.A, and the founding fathers themselves.

[Delta40]

How is free speech restricted where you are Clopin?

[Clopin]

How is free speech restricted where you are Clopin?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Certainly not as restricted as it is in Europe.

But then again I'm also free to partake in as much porn featuring small breasted women as I can handle, so we probably have entirely different standards by which to measure freedom.

[Ecurb]

I answered this in another post, you could reply to it. Your argument in short is that I, as a man am not free to rape any woman I encounter and therefore the notion that we live in a 'free' society is self defeating. I think this is pretty ridiculous, but I'm sure it's not the stupidest thing you've said today.

Clopin, Clopin, Clopin. You are utterly wrong (not surprisingly) about the nature of my argument. You like to think of yourself as a champion of free speech, but you are not, since you write: "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."

Others want to limit free speech when it bullies or harasses people; you want to limit free speech when it violates someone's copyright. For some reason, which you have not explained, you think limiting freedom of speech is fine if those limits benefit copyright holders, but not if those limits benefit people who are being harassed. I actually support freedom of speech MORE than you do, and although I would (ideally) not eliminate copyrights altogether, I would limit them more strictly than they are limited now. Each person must decide which rights trump which other (potential) rights. In your example of rape, the answer is obvious -- we all agree. In your example of holocaust denial, people in this thread disagree (although I actually agree with you). In my example of copyrights, you and I disagree -- and I'm the one supporting freedom of expression, not you.

[Clopin]

I actually have no idea about copyright law so you probably could convince me that in many cases they do violate freedom of speech, I was thinking mainly about patents and the like.

Aside from that I understand your argument very well, and it is drivel.

[Iain Sparrow]

Hey, don't make me the bad guy here, passionately pro human rights as I am! Just to be clear, I never said anything about limiting free speech for any reason. If I said "there are people who misuse their freedom of speech to harm others", it was for no other reason but to state a simple truth, which some people just refuse to acknowledge.


It was my misunderstanding then.:)

[Ecurb]

We could use more folks who understand about the primacy of free speech.

:)

How about you, Pompey? Surely you agree that "the primacy of free speech" seems to imply favoring freedom of speech over copyrights. I'm not suggesting we eliminate copyrights -- we freely limit our freedom of speech to support writers economically. But when we do, we are not supporting the notion of the "primacy of free speech", are we?

[Ecurb]

.

Aside from that I understand your argument very well, and it is drivel.

OK, Clopin.


Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility
Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

[Clopin]

Good, continue to do so.

[Iain Sparrow]

How is free speech restricted where you are Clopin?

I believe he's Canadian... the government can pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified. I hold dual citizenship, American and Canadian, so I can tell you that particular provision in the law, is just so typically Canadian. If I had to sum up the Canadian people in a single word, "reasonable" fits rather well. And that isn't a compliment.
Lucky for us, any free speech restrictions placed upon the good people of Canada will go unnoticed beyond her shores. As it stands now, they seldom say or do anything very rebellious, so curtailing those rights is a moot point.:)

[Clopin]

lol you best not be dissin the True North like that around me son.

[Pompey Bum]

How about you, Pompey? Surely you agree that "the primacy of free speech" seems to imply favoring freedom of speech over copyrights. I'm not suggesting we eliminate copyrights -- we freely limit our freedom of speech to support writers economically. But when we do, we are not supporting the notion of the "primacy of free speech", are we?

Well, as I understand it, Ecurb, the difference is that the First Amendment provides protection against government infringements of free speech as opposed to providing a general right of free speech that would apply, for example, as against private entities. I'm pretty sure that Clopin didn't say it did, and I know that I didn't. So no, I don't think that a publisher's lawyer going after a bootlegger is the same as the government trying to stop me from expressing my political views. Do you really question the primacy of the first amendment to American civil liberties?

[Clopin]

No pomp you don't get it, because every right you have to your life, liberty and property infringes on my rights to murder, rape, rob and lock you up we don't truly live in a 'free' society. Rights are just social constructs we agree to observe as a society, as Marx rightly observed and they really only serve to shackle the people. Your right to prevent me from driving your car contradicts my right to drive your car. I hope you understand better now.

Also this all applies to freedom of speech somehow.

p.p.s - I'm a complete tool

-Ecurb

He makes some good points pomp, besides if I talk really really loudly into a babies ear it could cause permanent hearing loss, something which is illegal... I mean that is by defintion restriction of speech, so uhm, draw your own conclusions.

[Ecurb]

Obviously, Pompey, if the government hauls someone off to prison (of forcibly fines that person) for writing or saying something, the government is infringing on his freedom of speech. This is true whether the person has denied the holocaust or plagiarized a book. It's also obvious that "going after a bootlegger is (not) the same as the government trying to stop me from expressing my political view." Nobody said they WERE the same. Nonetheless, the principle of free speech is involved in both cases, and if one ALWAYS supports the PRIMACY of free speech, it seems one would support it in both cases. (I don't, and I know most people don't -- my point is that looking at examples help to clarify the principles involved.)

Clopin appears to think that because I know that rights involve nothing more (or less) than a limitation on freedom I am (somehow) opposed to human rights. Not true. I just think we should recognize what rights involve. It's perfectly reasonable to support the right to free speech in most cases, but oppose it when it comes to plagiarism. It's also reasonable to try to suss out the principles behind one's position in both cases -- and, clearly, a general, principled belief in "the primacy of free speech" is NOT a principle compatible with support for copyright laws. Again, Clopin, this doesn't mean I oppose all copyright laws, or all intellectual property laws, or all property laws in general -- it just means that I try to see them for what they are. In the case of copyright, intellectual property rights clearly have been granted PRIMACY over the right to freedom of speech. This may or may not enhance American civil liberties. I'm not sure.

[Clopin]

I don't care what you personally believe, your argument that all rights impinge on the rights of others to circumvent your initial rights really just comes down to semantics and it's very silly.

[Ecurb]

No pomp you don't get it, because every right you have to your life, liberty and property infringes on my rights to murder, rape, rob and lock you up we don't truly live in a 'free' society. Rights are just social constructs we agree to observe as a society, as Marx rightly observed and they really only serve to shackle the people. Your right to prevent me from driving your car contradicts my right to drive your car. I hope you understand better now....blah, blah, rude insults, blah
.

Had I ever said anything resembling this, Clopin would be reasonable in his objections. Of course it is true that rights are social constructs we agree to observe as a society, but how Clopin has come to think that I infer from this that "they only serve to shackle the people" is unclear.

[Clopin]

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.*

Nothing resembling that eh?

[Pompey Bum]

Obviously, Pompey, if the government hauls someone off to prison (of forcibly fines that person) for writing or saying something, the government is infringing on his freedom of speech. This is true whether the person has denied the holocaust or plagiarized a book.

Since when does our government jail or fine people for denying the Holocaust? In any case, I'm pretty sure that while the first amendment "protects against government restrictions on speech; it does not provide a general right of free speech as against private actors." (O'Connor, 2013). To use another example, a private employer may choose to fire a worker for using an offensive racial slur like "Esk*mo k*ss" or "What a g*p!", but the government can't throw the offender in the clink for it. Not in America. Not yet.


It's also obvious that "going after a bootlegger is (not) the same as the government trying to stop me from expressing my political view." Nobody said they WERE the same.

Right, they 're not. The former does not involve the first Amendment's protection of free speech.

But I think I know where your argument is going: copyright laws violate the right to free speech, so we already limit free speech. And that being the case, here is a list of "victims" who are supporting my union or chosen political party, and who I am going to claim are being bullyied and harassed. They are going to be insulated from your ability to speak freely about them because, hey, we make exceptions, right?

Am I wrong about that?


Nonetheless, the principle of free speech is involved in both cases,

Nope. The first amendment makes them separate issues.


and if one ALWAYS supports the PRIMACY of free speech, it seems one would support it in both cases.

Again, one involves the right to free speech in the first amendment and one does not. So no, the primacy of free speech does not have to support both.


I don't, and I know most people don't --my point is that looking at examples help to clarify the principles involved.)

Uh huh.

Look, Ecurb, the argumentum ad nauseum is something I expect from some, but not you. Why not have the Grace to admit it when you've been shot down and join the group hug (or at least buy a cyber round)? It would also be big of you, by the way, to apologize to Clopin, a Canadian, who you were razzing pretty hard, but who has no real reason to know about our Constitution. But that's up to you, of course. Far be it from us to try to control your speech. :)

[DieterM]

Clopin, I’m getting rather tired of your self-righteous stance. And I don’t think that calling me a fascist just because I don’t agree with you 100% helps the debate, either. It’s excessive and hurtful. I never thought I’d have to say or write this one day, but apparently I do. So just for the record: I am NOT a fascist. If you want proof, I politely invite you to look at everything I’ve posted in these Forums; it’s not as if I had to prove anything, though—in our legal system, it’s not up to the accused to prove their innocence, but up to the prosecutor to prove the accused’s guilt.
This said, I want to make it clear (because apparently I have to, too) that I do support freedom of speech. You can ask me as often as you want to “[k]indly begin honestly referring to [my]self as someone who believes in restricted speech”, I maintain this. Like Ecurb (and unlike others) I don’t pretend to have all the answers; neither do I think MY opinion is the alpha and omega of the universe; but I think both of us, each in his way, have some good questions.
Ultimately and ideally, I support total freedom of speech. Knowing all the while that this would only be possible in an ideal world, in which we are not living.
I’ve noticed that a first restriction to freedom of speech has been more or less accepted here. I further notice that, interestingly, it’s a property-related restriction (copyright laws ultimately protect an author’s intellectual property of his/her work, I think we can agree on that).
What about lies, then? Isn’t it part of my freedom of speech to tell and spread lies about you, Clopin, for example? And yet, most countries agree that it’s against the law, and you could sue me for libel. So this is another restriction, and another one I find tenable. Cabu, one of the killed cartoonists, has been sued I don’t remember how many times; and he lost about ten trials (I think it was for libel). Each time, he willingly and good-humouredly paid the fees, acknowledging that he had gone too far and apologizing. He was a very polite, peaceful man, like the whole “Charlie”-team btw. Their conception of freedom of speech included the acceptation of the French laws restricting that freedom.
My point is: if you accept one single restriction, per definition you accept the principle that freedom of speech may be restricted. And the question that ensues is: once we start to restrict, where do we draw the line? What makes Clopin’s opinion more valuable, more “freedom-of-speech”-y than Ecurb’s, say? Or mine? Because, for historical reasons, we have certain laws here in Europe you don’t have in the US or in Canada, laws which have been voted because our politicians were thinking “Never Again”?
I hear you saying, “But let everyone express their views, as heinous and violent as they may be—people will see them for what they are and turn their backs on them”. Which is wishful thinking. Many people here in Europe finally saw the real, criminal nature of the Nazi regime when the war was over and millions had died. And many, even amongst those forced to visit the concentration camps, continued to deny the reality of the crimes, either by saying “But surely Hitler didn’t know about this…” or outright calling the camps a sham. Most laws have a history, a meaning, a reason.

[Clopin]

I've already addressed everything you touch on in that post. Please read the thread before posting in the future.

[Pompey Bum]

I’ve noticed that a first restriction to freedom of speech has been more or less accepted here. I further notice that, interestingly, it’s a property-related restriction (copyright laws ultimately protect an author’s intellectual property of his/her work, I think we can agree on that).

Not at all, Dieter. They may do things differently in France or Austria, but in the US, the right to freedom of speech means freedom from government restrictions on speech. That is categorically different than a private publisher seeking protection for a copyright claim.

There are, of course, some governmental restrictions on free speech. Conspiracy to commit a crime or treason could potentially be prosecuted as felonies, for example. And since 9/11, some speech as been further restricted. A teenage airline passenger, for example, was recently arrested for telling other passengers that he had Ebola. In general, such restrictions are supposed to follow the harm principle (the teenager was charged with inciting panic, for example), although in my opinion, some do not do so closely enough. But we have a judicial system to take care of those.


My point is: if you accept one single restriction, per definition you accept the principle that freedom of speech may be restricted. And the question that ensues is: once we start to restrict, where do we draw the line?

No, the harm principle does not create a "cafeteria" in which we chose which kind of free speech governments allow and which they prosecute. That is a dangerous proposition because those with a political ax to grind are likely to use it to illegitimately advance their agenda.

I understand that we are talking about different democratic systems, Dieter, and I am not suggesting that France or Austria ought to adopt ours. Personally, I prefer ours, but that's just an opinion.

Thank you for your thoughts, by the way, which provoked much reflection on my part. I find your comments about "historical exceptionalism" particularly interesting. I will try to address them soon.

[Ecurb]

Clopin (and even Pompey) should learn to read and write more carefully. Clopin writes that I believe: "Rights are just social constructs we agree to observe as a society, as Marx rightly observed and they really only serve to shackle the people." It is (of course) true that I think rights are social constructs (I would say, more accurately, culturally constituted). It is also true that I think they serve to shackle people (I would say "limit people's freedom"). Both of these things are not only true, but are so self-evident that it would be impossible to argue otherwise. The examples I used (owning a car, etc.) were simply meant to show that even in cases in which most of us agree that the "rights" are reasonable and important, they still serve to limit freedom. This is true not only of rights, but of all laws. Clearly, all laws limit freedom because if you break them, you get thrown in jail. Clearly "rights' limit freedom because they impose a legal or moral obligation on others not to violate them.

It does not follow that I (or anyone holding my eminently reasonable position) thinks that laws or rights should be abolished, or that unlimited freedom is the most noble of all goals. I never said that, nor do I think it. Rights DO serve to "shackle people" (to use Clopin's words); they also serve to free people. Laws serve to shackle people; they also serve to free people and regulate society. So when Clopin says that I think "rights ONLY serve to shackle people" his mistake is in using the word "only". It is an important word.

Words have specific meanings, as well as vague emotional associations. "Freedom" seems like a good thing, so we think that if someone (like me) points out that rights (or laws) limit freedom, that person must oppose rights (or laws). No true. I stand by everything I said in my screed that Clopin quoted above. Nonetheless, his inference that I therefore think rights ONLY serve to shackle people is illogical and impertinent.

Suppose Clopin admired islands, thinking them romantic. I might say, "Switzerland is not an island."

In horror, Clopin would reply, "What!? The beautiful homeland of William Tell? The birthplace of democracy? How can you deny the title of 'island' to that noble land?"

"I recognize the nobility and beauty," I would say, "But it still isn't an island."

Even the most ardent supporter of (for example) property rights must admit that they limit freedom. You can't legally freely walk across someone's private property without permission. But Clopin thinks that stating this obvious fact somehow implies a hatred for property rights. "Switzerland is an island".

Our government, Pompey, does not jail people for denying the holocaust. Again, when did anyone ever suggest it did? Germany does. France does. The U.S., no. Obviously, First Amendment rights have been hashed out over the centuries, and plagiarism is not protected (hence our copyright laws). Why should that imply that we should not discuss the issue of free speech in general terms, ignoring the First Amendment, especially since some participants in the discussion (including Clopin) are not Americans?

[Clopin]

Okay again, Ecurb I don't think anyone, ever, has argued that a free society needs to allow total freedom of actions. You don't think so either so may I ask what your point is? It seems to me like this is a summed up version of the argument.

Me - I really don't think freedom of speech should ever be restricted unless it can be proven to directly infringe on the rights of others, slander, incitement to violence, etc.

Ecurb - So you don't really support true freedom then? Afer all, every right you have limits the rights of someone else to directly act in opposition to that right, because we aren't free to rape, we have fewer rights. I have now proven to you that you do not support true freedom of speech..

Me - Well okay? What does this even entail? I don't think there is anyone in the world who would support total rights of movement and action in every circumstance, and I think a very fair line is drawn legally regarding free speech. Moving the line to include holocaust denial, or depictions of Muhammad, or jokes about the pope ultimately shows bias towards one particular group and leaves the door open for others from different groups to demand the same treatment. That's where the line needs to be.

[Clopin]

Also your argument that not being able to do X makes you less free only works if you only consider one person. I am less free to murder and rape but were I to exercise my freedom and perform either of those actions it would make my victim exceptionally 'not free'. That's why the line is drawn, you have total rights until they come into conflict with the rights of others.

[Ecurb]

Okay again, Ecurb I don't think anyone, ever, has argued that a free society needs to allow total freedom of actions. You don't think so either so may I ask what your point is? It seems to me like this is a summed up version of the argument.

Me - I really don't think freedom of speech should ever be restricted unless it can be proven to directly infringe on the rights of others, slander, incitement to violence, etc.

Ecurb - So you don't really support true freedom then? Afer all, every right you have limits the rights of someone else to directly act in opposition to that right, because we aren't free to rape, we have fewer rights. I have now proven to you that you do not support true freedom of speech..

Me - Well okay? What does this even entail? I don't think there is anyone in the world who would support total rights of movement and action in every circumstance, and I think a very fair line is drawn legally regarding free speech. Moving the line to include holocaust denial, or depictions of Muhammad, or jokes about the pope ultimately shows bias towards one particular group and leaves the door open for others from different groups to demand the same treatment. That's where the line needs to be.

That's pretty good Clopin. Making up the opposing argument can lead to argumentative victory. True: your made up argument has little to do with anything I wrote -- but I like the style. Here's my version of the thread recap, using Clopin's technique:

Clopin (running around in circles and strumming his lower lip with his fingers): I'm a little motor boat, putt, putt, putt!

Me: Good God, Clopin! Get a hold of yourself! You're a human being, not a little motorboat!

Clopin: Putt, putt, putt.

Me: Somebody help Clopin! He's lost it!

Pompey: Let's all have a group hug!

Me: OK, as long as it's a quick one, and we sort of just pretend to hug each other.

Clopin: Putt, putt, putt.

And so it goes.......

[Sancho]

Fellas, fellas... We're all friends here, eh? Lovers of literature - and free speech.

I've gotta tell Ya, the history of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is fascinating. I took a class on it a few years ago. There were a lot of complex cases settled in the 70s by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This movie clip from 1980 gets at it pretty good:

http://youtu.be/ktmNEWwH69s

Hey, the way I figure it, Elwood has just as much right to free speech as do the Illinois Nazis, he just chose to speak by opening the throttle and letting 440 cu inches of displacement talk for him.

[Clopin]

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=question%20time&search_type=&uploaded=m

The ghouls on question time discuss freedom of speech. Eveyone except Starkey deserves straight ridicule.

Also good lord at the slug in the back who posed the question in the first place... "free speech is good, but this is not really free speech, it's just offensive". I'm surprised he managed to find his way to the venue.

[Sancho]

Yeah, sounds like Starkey gets free speech.

I liked the part were he demonstrated that free speech (especially if delivered with fierce sarcasm and ridicule) was a much more effective tool against holocaust denial than laws stifling such speech.

He also said there was a line, but other than saying it was a "very narrow line", he didn't elaborate on what type of speech fell on the other side of the line. Or maybe he did. I didn't watch the whole thing.

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffP8UAp6e0s

Australians on free speech. I can't even care anymore, people deserve all the tyranny they get.

[OrphanPip]

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.

Is clothing not a form of speech? I certainly find this position bizarre given your apparent support for unimpeded speech expressed in the other posts. You move swiftly from deriding Europeans for passing laws that limit hate speech to the idea of deporting an entire population on the basis of their fundamental beliefs. What value does freedom of speech have if there is no respect for freedom of conscience?

[Ecurb]

Good point, OrphanPip. When France banned hijabs at school, I remember thinking a reasonable comparison might have been if Tahiti had prohibited American or Canadian teenage girls from wearing shirts to school (back in the days when Tahitian girls went topless, which they may not do today). In both cases, modesty might make girls feel uncomfortable about conforming to the dress code. It is also true that this modesty is culturally constituted, and (perhaps) a little silly. Nonetheless, it's reasonable to show some respect for it (and,of course, such regulations violate freedom of expression).

[Clopin]

Is clothing not a form of speech? I certainly find this position bizarre given your apparent support for unimpeded speech expressed in the other posts. You move swiftly from deriding Europeans for passing laws that limit hate speech to the idea of deporting an entire population on the basis of their fundamental beliefs. What value does freedom of speech have if there is no respect for freedom of conscience?

If someone's fundamental belief was that homosexuals should be stoned to death AND they acted on this belief, I suppose you would feel comfortable with that? After all it's their religious belief right? We must be tolerant. I find the idea of bagging women up incredibly offensive and disgusting. Also I never suggested deporting anyone because of their religious beliefs (search the Koran for dress codes involving the burqua), I suggested that people following Sharia law over national law, or committing violent crimes should be deported. Do you seriously disagree?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

By the way, my stance on the burqua ban is a little more complicated than I made it seem in my earlier post. I am unsure, for example, how I would vote if the issue came up in Canada (outside of Quebec where I do not live). I think that the burqua is an extreme transgression on the rights of women in Muslim society, however I know that many women wear the Burqua voluntarily and willingly, though many more are forced into it through direct or implied threats of violence. If religion were not a factor don't you think it might be seen as outright abuse if a father were to insist his daughter cover herself up every time she went out in public?

I do always think the espousal of tolerance on these issues can be a bit ridiculous. So you tolerate seeing men deny women the right to even be seen in public? What other things would you tolerate in the name of freedom of religion?

[Ecurb]

I think that the burqua is an extreme transgression on the rights of women in Muslim society, however I know that many women wear the Burqua voluntarily and willingly, though many more are forced into it through direct or implied threats of violence. If religion were not a factor don't you think it might be seen as outright abuse if a father were to insist his daughter cover herself up every time she went out in public?

I do always think the espousal of tolerance on these issues can be a bit ridiculous. So you tolerate seeing men deny women the right to even be seen in public? What other things would you tolerate in the name of freedom of religion?

In the U.S. and Canada, women (and men) are "forced into it (covering up) through direct or implied threats of violence." That is, if women don't wear shirts in public, or if men or women go about naked from the waist down, they get arrested and thrown in jail. The burqua involves more extreme "covering", but the principle is the same. Canadian and American fathers insist that their daughters cover their breasts and genitals before going out in public. Is that "outright abuse"? If not, on what moral principle does the distinction between parents forcing their daughters to wear shirts, hijabs, or burquas rest?

Personally, I don't think we (or Muslims) should threaten anyone who goes about insufficiently clothed -- but I also don't think we should threaten people who wear too much clothing for our taste by banning burquas.

[Clopin]

Mhm, the distinction, Ecurb is that insisting a woman cover her entire face denies her her individuality and identity, and it is an oppression which only applies to one gender and is generally forced upon them.

And I have absolutely no problem with the hijab, my only concern is the full on burqua.

[Jackson Richardson]

If women voluntarily wear a burqa to avoid unwanted attention that is rather different. When I see women in burquas on the streets of London, my reaction is to find it aggressive, but each to their own.

[Clopin]

No... not each to their own. You wouldn't say that if you saw a child being abused would you?

[Ecurb]

Mhm, the distinction, Ecurb is that insisting a woman cover her entire face denies her her individuality and identity, and it is an oppression which only applies to one gender and is generally forced upon them.
.

Here in the U.S. (where school children generally don't wear uniforms), schools occasionally promote the idea of mandatory uniforms. Some teenager (usually one who wears funny clothes) is bound to complain that being forced to wear a uniform "denies (his) individuality and identity." The teenager is right. In fact, the whole point of school uniforms is to make kids look alike -- to make them more "uniform". Specifically, schools want to ban clothing that might cause trouble -- gang "colors", or clothes that identify kids as members of problematic cliques. So any mandatory uniform promotes conformity over individuality. In fact, France banned hijabs for school girls for the same reason that some American schools ban gang colors -- to promote assimilation and to prevent cliquishness.

One problem with a variety of unique "individuals", each with her own "identity", is that some may choose "identities" of which we disapprove. Some might be Crips or Bloods, and wear clothing identifying themselves as such. Some might wear burquas. It seems a little strange to demand dress codes (for example, banning burquas) in order to promote "individuality".

In addition, other dress codes (like wearing shirts) apply only to women.

I don't think burquas are different in kind from other forms of dress. They go further than uniforms in limiting "identity", but along the same continuum. Indeed, some women might suggest that too much of a girl's identity is based on appearance, and burquas promote the notion that a girl's identity and worth can be based on something else.

My girlfriend wore a burqua when she visited Iran. She was staying with an Iranian family, and they wanted to show her some beautiful religious site to which non-Muslims were not admitted. They thought that she looked too "American" to "pass", even with a hijab, so they dressed her up in a burqua. She said she later wore it out on the street a couple of times because it was liberating not to be stared at (as a rare "outsider'), and she felt she could observe Iranian life better from inside a burqua.

Here in the West, we see burquas as symbolic of a slew of sexist Islamic practices. I'm not an expert on Islam, and some of these may be calumnies, but we associate Islam (especially Fundamentalist Islam) with: not allowing girls to go to school; not allowing women to drive or work outside the home; divorce laws that deny women fundamental rights; polygamy; the isolation of women in their homes; honor killings; female genital mutilation. To the extent that burquas symbolize support for these practices, they are objectionable -- and it's reasonable to think of burquas as an extension of the isolation of women in their homes. Early feminists burned their bras, because they thought of bras as a symbol of oppression. I would have no objection to Islamic women burning their burquas -- but for men (like Clopin) to burn bras or ban burquas seems a little extreme.

[Clopin]

Okay so since spanking your child is legal a full on punch in the face should be as well right? After all the difference is only a matter of degree. Forcing an entire gender to cover their entire face is the exact same as expecting people to wear shirts right? It's just slightly more restrictive.

If you seriously think a school uniform is equivalent to a burqa then you're even stupider than I thought you were.

[Ecurb]

The only person advocating "force" here is Clopin. Things can be analagous without being equal. Unfortunately for Clopin, he is not quite smart enough to recognize this.

[Clopin]

Saying that a school dress code is equivalent to a burqua is like saying spanking is equivalent to a serious, violent beating.

[Ecurb]

Clopin, try not to be so dense. Spankings are like serious beatings in some respects, and differ from serious beatings in other respects. Banning burguas is like banning other forms of clothing in some respects, and different in other respects. This is so obvious that it should be unnecessary to point it out.

In addition, although some women may be forced by men to wear burquas, you are arguing that all women should be forced NOT to wear them. My position, on the other hand, is that women should neither be forced to wear burquas, nor forced not to wear them. Let's keep our male hands out of women's clothing (unless specifically asked to put our hands IN by those wearing the clothes)!

[Clopin]

Clopin, try not to be so dense. Spankings are like serious beatings in some respects, and differ from serious beatings in other respects. Banning burguas is like banning other forms of clothing in some respects, and different in other respects. This is so obvious that it should be unnecessary to point it out.

This is literally my point you big dolt. Your suggestion that because we restrict everyone's freedom to wear what they want, in public, to some degree, we are essentially doing the same thing as Muslims who insist that women wear a burqua is totally ridiculous. Clearly a light spanking and a bloody beating are also different only in the level of magnitude, yet one is clearly a criminal offense and an act of child abuse, while the other is a somewhat controversial disciplinary measure. Degree matters, Ecurb; telling a woman that she needs to wear a shirt when she goes outside (which is actually not the law in most of the world, and is A law that is quite likely going to be changed in Canada and the States as well quite soon) is very different from telling her that she needs to cover her entire face whenever she goes out in public because she is a woman.

The topless laws are targeted at women for very clear and obvious reasons, by the way. Men, unlike women, lack secondary sex characteristics on their chest.


In addition, although some women may be forced by men to wear burquas, you are arguing that all women should be forced NOT to wear them. My position, on the other hand, is that women should neither be forced to wear burquas, nor forced not to wear them. Let's keep our male hands out of women's clothing (unless specifically asked to put our hands IN by those wearing the clothes)!

I agree fundamentally with this, but the problem lies with the pervasive threat of violence against women who choose to eschew the burqua. The risk involved in not wearing a burqua is not insignificant; so really it's easier to just ban the entire thing.

Also I never said all women, but rather all women in France (and Europe/North America if I were in charge). I'm perfectly content for other cultures to maintain their identities no matter how hideous I find some of their practices to be. Wear burquas, burn brides, publicly behead/stone people to death, 'circumsize' ninety percent of the women in your country, seriously, go nuts, but leave all of that out of the civilized world.

[Ecurb]

"Putt, putt, putt."

As usual, Clopin, you appear to be unable to comprehend standard English. I never said "because we restrict everyone's freedom to wear what they want, in public, to some degree, we are essentially doing the same thing as Muslims who insist that women wear a burqua." Instead, I said (and repeated several times) that enforcing rules affecting women's choice of clothing is IN SOME WAYS (not "essentially") equivalent (not "the same as") to Muslims insisting that women wear burquas. Insisting that school children wear school uniforms is "equivalent" to insisting women wear burquas in that both involve insisting that other people wear a particular form of clothing. Duh!

"Equivalent" (for those who, like Clopin, are unfamiliar with English) is derived from chemistry. It means having the same "valence", or combining weight. In geometry, "equivalence" refers to two shapes that have the same area, but not necessarily the same shape. So, yes, spanking is "equivalent" to serious beatings in the particular sense that both involve physically hitting another person. A triangle and a square can be "equivalent" if they have the same area. That doesn't mean they are identical.

According to Clopin, men "lack secondary sex characteristics on their chest." Isn't a hairy chest a "secondary sex characteristic"? Come on, Clopin. Think! (I know it's hard for you.)

Finally, Orphanpip reopened this thread by suggesting that banning certain forms of dress seems inconsistent with support for freedom of expression. This was a reasonable suggestion.

[Clopin]

1. Equivalent.

This was your initial argument (that uniforms and burquas both reduce the individuality of the wearer, meaning they are both 'pretty much' the same, so having a problem with one of them is silly) and it was stupid. I'm glad we both agree now.

2. Secondary sex characteristics.

Fine, I misspoke. You know what I meant and you should be able to acknowledge that barring a woman from bearing her breasts (which only women have) is more akin to barring a man from displaying his penis than barring either from displaying their face.

3. Reasonable suggestion.

I agree and so I have expanded on why I think the burqua is unacceptable. I personally have no problem with symbols of religious expression in general; crosses, hijabs and bindis are all fine by me. I see kids in school wearing the hammer and sickle, or Che, or anything else and I'm fine with it, Hell I would be fine with a swastika shirt. The issue isn't even that the burqua is uniquely oppressive (though I believe it is), it's that I'm not convinced the women who wear the burqua are choosing to do so in an atmosphere of perfect freedom and safety. If they were then I would wish the ban to be repealed; as it stands however I believe that women who choose to eschew the burqua often risk their own lives (and often lose them) in doing so.

[Clopin]

Insisting that school children wear school uniforms is "equivalent" to insisting women wear burquas in that both involve insisting that other people wear a particular form of clothing. Duh!


Nice tautology. See I'm used to people who make statements in opposition to my points actually having the intention of making an argument. I interpreted your reasoning here as an argument against my statement that the wearing of the burqua is a harmful and unpleasant cultural practice, uniquely oppressive to women, which has no place in our societies. It seemed to me like you were suggesting that because some restrictions on clothing do exist in the west, we should have to accept all restrictions on clothing, which to me is as stupid as saying that:

Because we allow spanking we should allow closed fist, nose breaker punches on children, both involve hitting in some form as a disciplinary measure.

Of course my argument here only applies if you meant your statement to be a point of reasoning against my position (it seemed like you did, I mean... you quoted me and all). If you didn't and all you wanted to do was prove that Muslims wear clothes and I wear clothes then congratulations, you have done so.

Now you can see why we allow spanking and don't allow violent abuse right? You're able to differentiate between the two right? And you see how there could possibly be a difference between making kids wear a uniform to school and making women wear bags over their entire face and body so that they can never be seen by men in public, riiiiiiight?

[Ecurb]

1. Equivalent.

This was your initial argument (that uniforms and burquas both reduce the individuality of the wearer, meaning they are both 'pretty much' the same, so having a problem with one of them is silly) and it was stupid. I'm glad we both agree now.
.

You still don't get it, Clopin. "Equivalent" does not mean "pretty much the same". It means "the same with regard to one particular quality." That quality is "valence" in chemistry, and "area" in geometry. Banning burkhas is "equivalent" to banning certain forms of speech in that both involve forcible restrictions on freedom of expression. Uniforms and burquas share certain qualities, but I think neither should be banned, and neither should be mandated (uniforms are reasonably mandated for certain voluntary professions for which they are necessary, like soldier, policeman, or Hooters waitress).

Clopin goes on to characterize my opinion (in his next post) as, "It seemed to me like you were suggesting that because some restrictions on clothing do exist in the west, we should have to accept all restrictions on clothing, which to me is as stupid as saying that: Because we allow spanking we should allow closed fist, nose breaker punches on children, both involve hitting in some form as a disciplinary measure."

Of course I was arguing precisely the opposite point: we should support freedom of expression by refusing to ban clothing and by refusing to ban speech. It is true that I pointed out a particular "equivalency" between banning burkhas in Vancouver and banning shirts for Western girls in Tahiti. However, my point was that BOTH bans are silly, and that both bans might embarrass women, and that both bans restrict freedom of expression, and violate culturally constituted norms for particular sub-cultures.

Why Clopin inferred that I was suggesting exactly the opposite of what I WAS suggesting is unclear. Let's recap: Clopin, you are the one who opposes freedom of expression by supporting the burqua ban. I oppose burqua bans. Is that simple enough for you? (By the way, I also oppose school uniforms, laws mandating that women wear shirts, and other limits on freedom of expression, although none of these are high priorities in my moral universe.)

No reasonable person would suggest that differences in degree are not "differences". Nonetheless, comparing two bans that are "equivalent" in some particular way is useful in determining the principle upon which a law is based. Spanking and assault and battery are "equivalent" in the sense that both involve physically striking another person -- Clopin cannot reasonably infer from this statement that I think parents who spank their children should be clapped in irons.

[cacian]

burqua ban? yeah i would support that.
it is not good to hide your body in this fashion.
and it is not healthy either.
there are two forms of extremism i personally consider
over clothing and nudity they are similar in that they do not make sense in an environment that does.
they stand out like a sore thumb.
there was this lady wearing a burka complaining it was too hot whilst at queue till.
i could not help myself and so turned around and said
well i am not surprised your clothing dis not particularly airy it is heavy for this time of the year.
i guess i told her the truth.

[cacian]

nous sommes Charlie
je suis Charlie
what about
le canard enchaîné , more like, le cafard déchainé
do you read that?

[Pompey Bum]

Ou peut-etre le canard mort? ;-)

[Lykren]

If we ban burqas for women, can we also ban silly and expensive menswear that makes the wearer look like a hobo? I am deeply offended by Clopin's decision to cover (and therefore degrade) his body with such apparel, which decision I am sure must be the result of a barbaric and centuries-old system of brainwashing that has no place in our enlightened world.

[cacian]

If we ban burqas for women, can we also ban silly and expensive menswear that makes the wearer look like a hobo? I am deeply offended by Clopin's decision to cover (and therefore degrade) his body with such apparel, which decision I am sure must be the result of a barbaric and centuries-old system of brainwashing that has no place in our enlightened world.

i think it barbaric to cover your head in the midst of a hot summer
unless it is of course beyond your help
it is not the look it is the inconvenience that does not make sense
and it does not stop there children are made to wear them which i find most disturbing.
that is how it makes me feel it is my opinion.

[cacian]

Ou peut-etre le canard mort? ;-)

mort?? oh non
it is a duck after all haha :D

[Pompey Bum]

Oui, je comprends bien. :) canard = newspaper, n'est pas?

[Clopin]

If we ban burqas for women, can we also ban silly and expensive menswear that makes the wearer look like a hobo? I am deeply offended by Clopin's decision to cover (and therefore degrade) his body with such apparel, which decision I am sure must be the result of a barbaric and centuries-old system of brainwashing that has no place in our enlightened world.

HA! No, we can not >:U

Lykren how can you dislike this shirt?

http://cdn0.grailed.com/api/file/rpMcXDX6SpOJ77t90Yzq?cache=true

[cacian]

Oui, je comprends bien. :) canard = newspaper, n'est pas?

c'est bien ça . :)
have you read it?

[Lykren]

HA! No, we can not >:U

Lykren how can you dislike this shirt?

http://cdn0.grailed.com/api/file/rpMcXDX6SpOJ77t90Yzq?cache=true

Because I own it, and it sucks.

[Pompey Bum]

Clopin, if I saw that shirt in my house I'd hire an exorcist.


c'est bien ça . :)
have you read it?

Non, je parle Francais comme une vache. I'd never make it through.

[Clopin]

You and Lykren are tasteless slobs!

[YesNo]

burqua ban? yeah i would support that.
it is not good to hide your body in this fashion.
and it is not healthy either.
there are two forms of extremism i personally consider
over clothing and nudity they are similar in that they do not make sense in an environment that does.
they stand out like a sore thumb.
there was this lady wearing a burka complaining it was too hot whilst at queue till.
i could not help myself and so turned around and said
well i am not surprised your clothing dis not particularly airy it is heavy for this time of the year.
i guess i told her the truth.

It seems that I missed an entertaining thread. The way you express things gets me thinking, cacian.

There are a lot of reasons one might try to use to convince the people representing the people (government) to ban or officially discourage something.

1) Health: Cigarettes come to mind. They are not banned in the US, but are highly discouraged.

2) Safety: Here is where I can see a good argument against the burka since it prevents one from identifying who is wearing it. There is at least one bank in the area where I live that requests those entering remove clothing about their heads that might hide their identity from the surveillance cameras. This would probably include the head covering of a burka.

3) Protecting Children: If one can make this argument stick, it would be powerful. Personally, I think that circumcising male infants is mutilation, child abuse, gross and probably a lot of other things I can't think of at the moment, but not many people agree with me.

4) Protecting Women: No matter what feminists might say about men and what men might actually do, they do like playing the role of knights rescuing damsels in distress. In the case of the burka, however, I suspect the females wearing them want to wear them. Banning the burka might have the unexpected effect of forcing these women to stay home. So this would be a reason not to ban the burka, but simply require the head covering be removed when the women enter public buildings.

5) Irrationality: I just mention this for completeness. It is an argument that often backfires.

Regarding Clopin's shirt, there might be a health issue here, but once he gets married, the shirt will likely disappear.

[Clopin]

I am for banning it because I don't believe the decision to wear it in the first place is made freely, if it were a decision Muslim women were entirely free to make (either to don or eschew), without any fear of recrimination then I would be absolutely against banning a garment.

However it is also simply an extremely unpleasant cultural relic and I think we should rather err on the side of getting rid of it.

[cacian]

I am for banning it because I don't believe the decision to wear it in the first place is made freely, if it were a decision Muslim women were entirely free to make (either to don or eschew), without any fear of recrimination then I would be absolutely against banning a garment.

However it is also simply an extremely unpleasant cultural relic and I think we should rather err on the side of getting rid of it.

dix points for that Clopin.
i agree full and whole heartdelly.

[ennison]

Chopin You're young and extreme. I'm old and much extremer. You want to ban an item of dress?? Take a deep breath.

[YesNo]

I think at least the face should be exposed, maybe the whole head, so surveillance cameras can identify who is under that garment in public places.

[Whifflingpin]

Perhaps we should all wear veils to preserve some privacy from surveillance cameras.

[Pompey Bum]

Heh. :)

It's going to be visors with see through computer screens. We're all going to look like that guy from Star Trek: The Next Generation.