OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
WH,
I don't see how free speech cannot come with the corollary of freedom to criticise that speech; freedom of expression and freedom to criticise that expression are just two sides of the same coin.
I think that's right, but I wouldn't say that every response we could legally make to offensive speech would be equally worthwhile. If we're trying to promote positive discussion, we need ideas about how people should conduct themselves, and how people should be treated. I think the case for Henry's resignation can be made on that basis. I'm not sure that debasing public discussion really helps to promote the kinds of public discussion we say we want.
-
WH,
Sorry Russell - could you remove these duplicates - my script blocking software has gone crazy.
-
WH,
I don't see how free speech cannot come with the corollary of freedom to criticise that speech; freedom of expression and freedom to criticise that expression are just two sides of the same coin.
I think that's right, but not every response we're permitted to make to offensive speech is equally worthwhile. If we're trying to promote positive kinds of public discussion, we need ideas about how people should conduct themselves in public, and how people who participate in those discussions should be treated. I don't think that undermining the principles that we say we're trying to protect really helps, unless we're prepared to have everything sound just a bit like talkback.
I'd accept that's pretty humourless, and I suppose it's more complicated when we're making assesments of personality and credibility. Social feedback is probably important in maintaining group norms, and I guess Henry has got plenty of that recently.
-
I'm not entirely sure if parsing out the exact connotation of insults and insisting on correctness there is ever going to fly. The point is: Insulting people is insulting.
Up to a point, Ben. But isn't that what everyone who doesn't live in a cave does a hundred times every day? I hope Megan won't mind me using her as an example, but I'd quite gleefully talk filth to my dear chum Frau Fifi Von Spangle-Bling over a caffeinated beverage. My colleague at Radio New Zealand during a staff meeting - not so much. Times and places; contexts and socially appropriate tones.
-
I'd quite gleefully talk filth to my dear chum Frau Fifi Von Spangle-Bling
See, now you put me in a good mood for the whole day, and I had it pencilled as "grumpy". This is just going to mess with my schedule.
-
See, now you put me in a good mood for the whole day, and I had it pencilled as "grumpy". This is just going to mess with my schedule.
Darling, Fifi is all about putting you in a good mood.
[ETA: Just to rather prove Craig's point about filth]
-
I think it's why Jon Stewart is quick to emphasise that he runs a comedy show rather than a news show. It leaves his free to make the kind of criticisms he made about Crossfire.
Actually, his criticisms were sound independent of who made them, comedian, newsman, etc That's the defining characteristic of truth, after all-it's not just "true for you", it's actually, objectively true.
-
Up to a point, Ben. But isn't that what everyone who doesn't live in a cave does a hundred times every day?
I don't. Unless people consider my very existence an insult. Mind you, I do call my office my cave sometimes....
Talking filth isn't necessarily insulting.
-
Talking filth isn't necessarily insulting.
Not necessarily.
But, it pays to be careful.
I walked past 2 (male) friends talking the other day, having a conversation that included the words "Great tits. Nice legs."
As I walked past, I jokingly said "thanks". But I also gave one of them a talking to later about describing women in those terms, and how it probably wasn't appropriate for certain places.
-
Talking filth isn't necessarily insulting.
No it isn't -- but my point is that what would be entirely appropriate between Megan and I in a social setting would not be at all if we were co-workers in a staff meeting. Believe it or not, My Margaret Thatcher-meets-Joan-Rivers-on-crack persona can, and often does, get dialled all the way back. Partly because I'm trying to be a little less scatter-shot when it comes to my powers of oral emasculation; mostly, though, because I've done a lot of temp work where a bad reputation hits your bottom line. Hard.
Even socially, there are plenty of women of my acquaintance who couldn't handle even PAS levels of urine extraction. It would just gratuitously upset and offend decent people who don't really deserve it.
[ETA: OMFG, this is going to shred my carefully cultivated reputation as a vile sewer-mouthed bully. Never mind.]
-
I generally operate on the "my mother" rule: any insult or slur can be justified by a context of an obvious loving history between the speaker and the subject. For example, I can call my mother a retarded gadfly whenever I want, because listeners will be aware that she is my retarded gadfly. On the other hand, were a vague aquaintence of mine to use the same terms to describe my mother, it'd be on like Donkey Kong.
See also a white American vs a black American's use of the word "nigger"-history matters.
-
No it isn't -- but my point is that what would be entirely appropriate between Megan and I in a social setting would not be at all if we were co-workers in a staff meeting.
Naturally. That's actually what I was getting at, that it's not credible to decode insults "context free". The same words are not insulting in different contexts, and there are no words that can't be insults if put in conjunction with others to form an insulting proposition.
Your own lurid metaphors have always entertained me, Craig. I'd be sorry to see them go, TBH. Context was important, they were clearly hyperbolic at times, familiar and friendly in others. Very seldom were they direct rags calculated to insult particular individuals.
And I'm sorry, Megan, but when I'm with my male friends, female anatomy is always and forever going to be a favorite subject. It's been a lifelong preoccupation.
-
And I'm sorry, Megan, but when I'm with my male friends, female anatomy is always and forever going to be a favorite subject. It's been a lifelong preoccupation.
And I understand that. But while it might be fine around a table at the pub, it probably isn't in a public, professional hallway. And certainly now within earshot of several women.
-
Yes, context is all. They sound like they were pushing their luck. Their crime wasn't what they said, but where and how loud they said it.
-
My mother told me about walking towards her work, following a very tall, very shapely young woman who worked in the same building. Sauntering along towards them were two young blokes, muttering to each other and looking very appreciatively at said young woman. As my mother passed them, she heard one say, "Yeah, but think of the climb up!"
-
What do socialists look like?
New Zealanders
In my experience, they are very handsome.
And varied. And closer to social democrats than socialists proper. Very few hard core socialists in NZ (me thinks. Could be wrong...)
Kracklite:
How I have missed you
Where have you been, Babel?
Jeremy:
I believe the great GG had hers photographed - full Monty fashion - for some magazine (cough) spread. She was hoping to dispel the mythology. Didn't really work, eh? -
The penis is very ugly.
I am assured that some people find them highly attractive.
-
Given that hardcore porn is predominantly consumed by men and is obsessively focussed on the penis, I would say that most people do.
-
The penis is very ugly.
I am assured that some people find them highly attractive.
Very sensible keeping your enemies close. Indeed, on that note, might I proffer that up close the penis is, well, a different animal than when seen...at arms length. I wouldn't like to say different good, or different bad, or...
-
Depends on the light, I guess, as they come and go..
I was recently reading some lad's mag at the barber's (sort of the male equivalent of reading No Idea) which had a feature on Things Blokes Do. Along with practices such as using your girlfriend's best shampoo on your pubes ("They never looked so shiney...!"), they suggested that, that at least once in their life, all men have tucked their apparatus between their legs, to see what they would look like as a girl. Hmmm...
-
Given that hardcore porn is predominantly consumed by men and is obsessively focussed on the penis, I would say that most people do.
and that's why the penis is used to sell cars,c'mon hardcore porn is not penis porn.The Penis is not loved by the camera, it really is an organ that probably should be on the inside of your body.
-
it really is an organ that probably should be on the inside of your body.
Must. Resist. Urge. To. Smut
-
hard, I know
-
it really is an organ that probably should be on the inside of your body.
Whatever floats your boat... but I prefer it on the inside of someone else's body... :)
-
hard, I know
Oh, come ON.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.