| Author | Message | ||
     Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.8.21.87 |
Interesting. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/ | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.39.119 |
Most interesting, yes. Especially as it bases its argument on historical analysis rather than an abstract 'freedom of speech' principle. I agree that basing the banning of 'hate speech' on a speculative prediction of its effects is hard to justify. Really 'hate speech' has to be assessed in real time as a form of abuse and/or libel. People have a right not to be defamed in a public context, and a right to live free from abuse, and that is the context in which 'hate speech' should be assessed. Not all kinds of mockery, satire, criticism etc are 'hate speech' and, while I think there are certain kinds of abuse and libel that people should not have to suffer, the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable verbal attacks requires careful thought and public debate. People have a right to live their lives without hostile and/or dishonest abuse, but they do not have an automatic right to silence mockery or criticism. There's no simple formula for the distinction. | ||
| Christopher Overend (Chris_overend) Username: Chris_overend Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 78.148.200.234 |
Eloquent, Joel. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.18.174.156 |
Given any statement of criticism it's all a matter of judging the tone of the "attack" with its content, innit. Exaggeration for comic effect is fine (Jeffrey Archer deserves to be shot for his crimes against fiction) but spreading misinformation to instil fear and hatred (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) is criminal. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
As an adjunct to this discussion I was late for work this morning due to getting hopelessly involved with the televised opening of the Anders Breivik trial in Norway. The man was allowed to make a statement admitting his actions but denying any criminal responsibility due to his being a soldier in the war against multiculturalism. For him, so he professed, this was a statement of fact not hatred and therefore he could not be charged with any crime. What followed was over an hour of this poor woman within the courtroom having to read out every detail of all 77 deaths he was responsible for, involving frequent stops to compose herself with a drink of water and an uncomprehending upward glance at the man responsible. He never once raised his head and even had to shake himself out of a doze at one stage. What struck me, though, was the sheer humanity with which this individual was treated and the professionalism of all the courtroom staff, with nothing more than looks of heartfelt sympathy to the woman reading his litany of death to reveal their own unspoken feelings. The stiff procedures of the courtroom in the face of such a monstrous crime may seem cold at first glance but watched right through with all subtleties noticed one realises that's the heart of humanity right there. Intelligence, respect, self-control in the face of the unthinkable and the curtailing of all our base selfish instincts to strike out against that which harms us. By comparison Breivik appeared nothing more than a superficial coward living behind a thin curtain of barely sustained arrogance. God help all the relatives of the bereaved and everyone touched by this man's ego. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.8.27.69 |
I agree, Stevie. I felt very much the same about the Moat man. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.44.17 |
Well said, Stevie. I followed this on the news today and felt the same way about it. |