Likes: 
Faceplams: "Sparks a backlash" is typical bullshit headline hype. But, good for her.Originally Posted by Jinsai
Bite me
"Sparks a backlash" is typical bullshit headline hype. But, good for her.
Throbbing Member
When's that international hand holding parade for the Nigerian villages that Boko Haram slaughtered again? 12 Parisians are apparently more important.
Active Member
Nevermind...
Last edited by Khrz; 02-01-2015 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Temper tantrum
tempus est umbra in mente
I would consider the march in Paris to be an inclusive gesture. You are probably right though, it should be spelled out more clearly. Still, you can't repeatedly expect all the leaders of the world to show up in public spaces and make targets of themselves.
Active Member
What's going on at PEN America is shameful:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...urnalists.html
Active Member
That topic is such a terrifying issue for intellectuals. They look like a bunch of movie cops around a timebomb, and each time someone picks a wire, no matter the color, everyone sweats profusely and screams.
It's really funny though, watching how everyone reacts to the freedom of speech for/against people who don't believe in freedom of speech...
While Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." has been inspirational for centuries, it's suddenly become a paradox.
Active Member
Two shot outside Muhammad Cartoon Event
To your point @Khrz , events like this will and should be defended for their right to free speech even it is hateful and provocative.
For me, this guy said it very well.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-0...ic-hate-groups
Active Member
I'm not arguing against freedom of expression (which isn't "free speech", "free speech" is an american law, freedom of expression is the concept behind it), never.
There are a lot of laws here against freedom of expression, making it illegal to contest the existence of the holocaust for instance, or to make racist statements. They are generally used to shut down a certain class of people easily, making it a fundamentally anti-democratic tool. I find it extremely unhealthy. I'd rather have the person who opposes my views be able to express theirs. And if our only argument against such views is to squarely shut them down, it is itself a rather sad statement about our society.
Nonetheless, I find the paradox of trying to shut down people who make use of their freedom of expression to argue against people who would rather have that expression hindered somewhat amusing.
Active Member
This story was about a group trying to demonstrate freedom of speech/expression by an act that apparently many muslims find offensive, blasphemous, and punishable. The two dudes that pulled up in front of this meeting clearly were provoked. Apparently, the local average muslims had put the group on active ignore, which is what most people do any time we hear about the Westboro Baptist Church.. They offend and hate many and hide behind free speech. Well, this is ok here as long as you don't defame. I don't disagree. I want this avenue open for the folks that have an thought or idea that might not belong to the majority, but could be a great thought - for me.
Throbbing Member
These laws do have their place. Can you imagine Germany wouldn't outlaw Nazi ideology? We have this as well and I'm perfectly okay with it. European countries have a history with Nazism, people who went through concentration camps are still alive in here. For me personally it is more important that this scum won't have a chance to rise to power again. This law is basically saying that you can't promote hateful ideologies preaching harming of other people. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
Active Member
I would agree, except that societies and governments change way faster than laws do. We still have remains of Napoleonian laws, for instance.
Eventually, these laws can serve to censor and shut down any dissenting voice according to the current ideology and eventually the very persons you tried to silence may one day use them to forbid your right to disagree publicly.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, these laws have been used to silence those who disagreed publicly about the martyrdom of those cartoonists and journalists. This is not their prime purpose, but laws are very adaptable.
Laws tend to be unmovable points with a very fuzzy range of action. "Hate speech" could be about anyone, depending on the current government and zeitgeist. Censorship may be one of the fuzziest.
And just because you tell someone to shut up doesn't mean they stopped to exist or communicate, especially nowadays. You're merely hiding the issue to yourself, until suddenly you end up with a fascist government because you allowed no one to talk about race openly, creating an underground loop of discussion on the subject among citizens. Allowing an open discourse is allowing the expression of counter-arguments. When you censor a subject, there are no counter-arguments, because there is no discussion.
Last edited by Khrz; 05-08-2015 at 10:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
