free speech and public safety

[nbdy]

I was surprised that the topic was nowhere to be found on the boards, and entertained the idea that it had been here, became toxic, and was removed during my absence. I don't think it is a subject that should be too hot to handle, but if I am wrong I will take the gentle hint of this thread disappearing.

When the post-shooting edition of Charlie Hebdo came out the cover image was in the Washington Post. I commented to my very-liberal journalist neighbor that I thought they had done the right thing by making it clear that they would not be intimidated to act against their beliefs by the violence of some one else's beliefs. She just about blew a gasket telling me how irresponsible she thought they had been and how they had endangered journalists all over the world by continuing to provoke the Muslim community. I was stunned by her response and replied that a person is either for free speech or not, even if the content of the speech is considered abhorrent. I also pointed out that this magazine was not journalism, but satire. What I saw as a group of people taking a stand on principle she saw as a group of people being very stupid and endangering more lives.

I am concerned by her point of view even though it has merit because I think a fundamental liberty is at stake. If speech is only free when it is not provocative to anyone who might become violent then the content of our discourse is proscribed by the most violent in society. To my mind the answer to speech you do not like is to put forth one's own speech advocating a different view. There is no law in France that people must respect the faiths of others, and from what I have heard Hebdo respected nothing. Respect is good manners and, to my mind, a sign of maturity, but it is not legally required. I do not think such laws are a good idea since it sets up some one to judge the appropriateness of something before it even goes to press. Anyone uncomfortable in a society that values free speech should perhaps relocate to a country that does not value free speech, because free speech is not easy. It is necessary for anything resembling democracy to thrive, but it is certainly not easy. I have said for a long time that you know what you truly believe when believing it is not easy.

[MaskedOne]

Re: free speech and public safety

The topic comes and goes over the years, normally as part of another discussion. My position is pretty much always the same,

As a matter of law, I'm for almost unfettered speech. The traditional example of what I don't consider acceptable is yelling fire in a crowded theater without a fire or other threat.

As a matter of private life and interaction. Legally protected speech protects you from the government and other laws (namely the prohibition on assault) limit what private citizens can do in response but I'm under no obligation to tolerate behaviour I find offensive from a guest on my property or to render support (monetary or otherwise) to a person or cause with a continued habit of being offensive.

As a matter of forum regs, I strongly advise that everyone leave the happy illusion of the First Amendment at home. Most forums, this one included, don't acknowledge such a quaint idea as members having protected speech

[thalassa]

Re: free speech and public safety

The biggest thing I've learned over the years is that "free speech" (or press, etc) is a misnomer---all expression has a cost, whether is "protected" or not. It all depends on what you think your words are worth.

I think it is terribly short sighted to think these journalists were irresponsible. Freedom of expression is freedom to be offended, not freedom from offense. But that freedom doesn't mean without cost...it only means the gov't can't censor you, it doesn't mean that nutjobs won't go postal on you (and this is something that has been happening since we had a press...google elijah lovejoy).

I have to wonder thouggh, what this woman thinks about a woman walking alone down a dark alley in skimpy clothing and gets raped.......is it her fault? because if not, it seems a bit irrationally hypocritical...

[DanieMarie]

Re: free speech and public safety

The biggest thing I've learned over the years is that "free speech" (or press, etc) is a misnomer---all expression has a cost, whether is "protected" or not. It all depends on what you think your words are worth.

I think it is terribly short sighted to think these journalists were irresponsible. Freedom of expression is freedom to be offended, not freedom from offense. But that freedom doesn't mean without cost...it only means the gov't can't censor you, it doesn't mean that nutjobs won't go postal on you (and this is something that has been happening since we had a press...google elijah lovejoy).

I have to wonder thouggh, what this woman thinks about a woman walking alone down a dark alley in skimpy clothing and gets raped.......is it her fault? because if not, it seems a bit irrationally hypocritical...

Ha...I was actually going to draw the same comparison.

Anyway, I don't like Charlie Hebdo and find a lot of those controversial images pretty tasteless and offensive, but that doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be free to print them. I really hate the fact that my opinions on freedom of press and freedom of expression cause me to defend such a publication, but that's the way it is. Same goes for the Pegida people closer to home. I think they're tasteless and I wish they'd go away, but they have a right to voice their opinions (within boundaries...some of their opinions might come close to Germany's Anti-Nazi laws at some point). I might not like what they have to say, but they have a right to offend me. In a world where they don't have freedom of expression, perhaps I wouldn't have freedom of expression, and I wouldn't be ok with it. So that's how it is.

I am ok with some boundaries on freedom of press and expression...I think it's important to ban hate speech intended to incite violence. And by that, I don't mean that it -might- offend people and cause violence; I mean publications that directly state "Go attack/kill/rape x." They can say they don't like groups of people all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to directly try to convince others to commit acts of violence against those groups.

As for public safety and provoking groups of people to commit violence, I think Thal's comparison to rape victim blaming works well here. People are quick to blame the victims in such extreme cases, but where's the line, exactly? A girl can get raped wearing sweatpants and no makeup. Fundamentalists can attack people for doing things that are banned in their version of their religion but are totally commonplace in our culture (giving women equality, allowing gay marriage, drinking alcohol, etc, etc, etc). So, where's the line? We might say, "well, they shouldn't print that, because it provokes violence). But then if they stop printing it, does that line move a little bit to the right?

[habbalah]

Re: free speech and public safety

The thing about free speech in America that people don't seem remember (or they don't know) that not all forms of speech are protected. (Yes, I know that this author/artist is French, but I'm making a point here). You legally cannot:

1) Advocating producing "imminent lawless action" (such as violent overthrow of the government).
2) Use profanity and/or obscenity (that is considered without literary, artistic, or scientific merit. But movies and songs can still get censored).
3) Threaten harm or death against another person.
4) To make claims that would hurt others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example).
5) Perjury
6) Harassment
7) Libel, slander, and/or defamation of character
8) Words/actions that are deliberately goading someone into an immediate physical reaction (e.g. telling someone their mother is a whore because you want them to hit you).
9) Extortion.
10) False advertising.
11) Plagiarism (and as a writer, I believe that plagiarists go to a special ring of hell).
12) Child pornography (extra special ring of hell).
13) "Certain symbolic actions" such as graffiti and burning crosses on private property. (I think this might come down to destruction of property more than free speech).

Do I think that means the attack on Charlie Hebdo was warranted? Of course not. But free speech does NOT protect you from response or criticism, which is why I get irritated when people make a statement, then whine when people criticize it because it's violating their free speech. But I digress. The point I was trying to make here is that, as Thalassa said, free speech isn't completely free. Does that mean Charlie Hebdo I think is to blame or was "asking for it"? Absolutely not.

I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so let me wrap this up: I believe everyone should have the right to expression, but know that expression does have a reaction, and sometimes, it's far worse than what you could ever predict or deserve.

[LunarHarvest]

Re: free speech and public safety

Ultimately, as habbalah pointed out, there is some limits that have to be placed on speech for the general safety of the population and the assurance of the preservation of civil order and state, but in regards to hate speech and religious intolerance I am of the opinion that such speech - unless it can be defined under any of the categories which are deemed threatening to the very social order of society - should be ultimately permitted to be said without legal consequence.

I do think that depicting the prophet Muhammed was, while within their right to do so, immature and ultimately a poor decision, and relatively culturally insensitive for a far-left magazine.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: free speech and public safety

Yes, it's rude.

Yes, it's crude.

Yes, it's tasteless.

None of these are ever crimes, except when religion is involved. Then, they are executable offenses.

Religion isn't all that sacred & cries out for criticism.

I'm not going to fall all over myself blurbling about how offensive it was, and about how I'd never do anything like that (you-all know me too well for that anyway), and ending up with "it was wrong to do those cartoons."

Bad taste is a part of life. If one's god(s) can't handle, one needs to get a bigger god.

[anunitu]

Re: free speech and public safety

One thing that is clear is "Religion" seems to always get a "Pass" as far as being protected from "Bad talk",EXCEPT when they are the ones doing the "Bad talk/action" Perhaps it was in bad taste to show the prophet in this way,but violent reaction is way over the top. For me at least Religion is the spoiled child that always wants its own way,or it will hold our breath until we all turn blue..

That includes ALL religion and beliefs...Grow the fork up already....

[habbalah]

Re: free speech and public safety

Well, it depends on the country and it depends on the religion. In the US, if you're not Christian and you do something horrible, everyone in your religion is like that. If you're Christian and do something horrible, it's "oh, they weren't a REAL" Christian.

[nbdy]

Re: free speech and public safety

The biggest thing I've learned over the years is that "free speech" (or press, etc) is a misnomer---all expression has a cost, whether is "protected" or not. It all depends on what you think your words are worth.

I think it is terribly short sighted to think these journalists were irresponsible. Freedom of expression is freedom to be offended, not freedom from offense. But that freedom doesn't mean without cost...it only means the gov't can't censor you, it doesn't mean that nutjobs won't go postal on you (and this is something that has been happening since we had a press...google elijah lovejoy).

I have to wonder thouggh, what this woman thinks about a woman walking alone down a dark alley in skimpy clothing and gets raped.......is it her fault? because if not, it seems a bit irrationally hypocritical...

First, I am always impressed by your knowledge of obscured history. Second, I actually made that comparison when she was railing on about it, pointing out that she was making a "blame the victim" argument essentially the same as the "she asked for it" argument people make regarding rape victims in short skirts. And she was unfazed.

[thalassa]

Re: free speech and public safety

First, I am always impressed by your knowledge of obscured history.

Lol, in this case, its local (hometown, not current town) history...and the name of the university library @ the university where my mom taught as an adjunct some times.

Second, I actually made that comparison when she was railing on about it, pointing out that she was making a "blame the victim" argument essentially the same as the "she asked for it" argument people make regarding rape victims in short skirts. And she was unfazed.

Le sigh...some how that doesn't surprise me. People are wierd. And largely unreasonable.


I have more thoughts on this...but I need to get back to trying to finish my friday!!!

[nbdy]

Re: free speech and public safety

I really don't see the issue as a religious one, but a fundamentalist of any faith will see every issue as a religious one. What we believe matters, in so many ways. I was raised with Enlightenment ideas, but how would things look to me if I had not been?

[habbalah]

Re: free speech and public safety

I really don't see the issue as a religious one, but a fundamentalist of any faith will see every issue as a religious one. What we believe matters, in so many ways. I was raised with Enlightenment ideas, but how would things look to me if I had not been?

Preach, sister.