RE: Freedom of Expression

RE: Freedom of Expression (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 10:25:52 AM)
Again, who do you feel should be in charge of defining the limits placed on freedoms, NorthernGent? The original question was "Given that so much violence and death arose from such events, do you feel freedom of expression should carry legally enforceable responsibility or that it should be absolute regardless of consequence? " I'm assuming you feel there should be legally enforceable responsibility. I just would like to know who you feel should make the decision.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 10:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Ultimately, this governing body that society needs must, through it's powers, educate us on civilisation. Part of this education is manners and respect - not bigotry aimed at incitement. A core rule of Government is to care for all of it's citizens and breed the conditions for us to thrive - if you're saying you don't believe Government can do this then your arguing against an established form of co-existence for thousands of years. Absolutely not!!!!!! Governments are the last people one needs to educate us on civilisation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think about it for a moment, we are actually fighting for civilisation in Iraq. That's like raping a woman to show her how to be affectionate. I prefer philosophers and artists and my own brains to teach me. The core rule of Government has never been the care of its citizens. It has yielded to something like that position over the last one to two hundred years, it reached its height at the end of the sixties and since, government has been inch by inch reducing what it is responsible for. The reason for government is power and nothing else, it maintains power and by keeping a consensus within the population. It's a balancing act between self interested parties.

SirKenin -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 10:30:59 AM)
Do not count on getting a straight answer out of him. [8\|]

Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 10:44:33 AM)
Since so many red herrings have been brought into this thread, let's not forget that the original cartoon was one showing a mullah with a bomb for a turban. Now I can see how someone could interpret that to mean that some members of the Muslim clerical community were wrapping potential violence in religious trappings... But I cannot find a rational way to make that cartoon mean 'Everyone should go out and kill a Muslim'. So the pontificating about 'cartoons inciting violence against Muslims' remains a non sequitur unlees some of the people behind that notion would care to offer something concrete in support.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 11:42:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Do not count on getting a straight answer out of him. [8\|] lol to be honest, I'm not counting on getting any answer My point to NorthernGent is that (if I read him correctly) he wants to see things such as the Danish cartoons banned in future because they will offend deliberately and cause a violent reaction from people. But that would also mean you would have to ban Muslim demonstrations in the UK because you're offending members of the National Front and they too might be swayed into a violent reaction. Once you start down this road, it doesn't end.

SirKenin -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 11:59:27 AM)
True, it is a slippery slope. That same concept is how we have gotten into this ridiculous politically correct crap to begin with.

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:03:40 PM)
LadyEllen, Your quote: In the end, we elect and place our trust in these people to run the place, and if we are then to say that we dont trust them to make such distinctions in the interests of all of us, then how we can have an organised society at all? I couldn't agree more. The reason we have Government is to guide us towards civilistation. It follows that part of this guidance towards civilisation is teaching us to behave in the right way towards other races/cultures/religions etc. We need Government to do the right thing on behalf of society just as pupils need teachers to do the right thing on behalf of them. After all, the function of Government is to set laws to allow us to co-exist in peace. Also, it goes without saying, in some areas, our Governments are failing us e.g. cash for peerages etc but that is a flaw in the personalities in the current Government rather than a flaw in the principles of Government. Individuals themselves are powerless to prevent such bigotry but as a collective body represented by an elected Government we can and if our the people we are electing are failing us then it's our duty to sort it out at the ballot box. NorthernGent

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:13:48 PM)
meatcleaver, Again, we're discussing two different issues. I take your point that there are Governments, including our own, that are corrupt and are failing us but that is a flaw in the personalities of the current Government - in no way does it represent a flaw in the principles of Government. It is an established mechanism for co-existing that dates back thousands of years and beyond. Also, the fact that Governments are in places like Iraq and Afghanistan without so much as a whiff of a decent reason doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable of forming and imposing laws around freedom of speech. If you think about what you are saying, you are using policies of certain Governments, dictated by politicians blinded by globalisation and big-business, to suggest there is no room for Government in society. This is quiet clearly wrong. If you said 'we currently have a war-mongering Government imbued with the principles of self-interest that is far removed from what a Government should be' then I would agree with you but you are making a giant leap in extending that to argue that the principles of Government are flawed. NorthernGent

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:15:56 PM)
English, I must have mentioned the word Government more than 6,000 times so it's fair to say I believe Government has a duty to it's citizens to form and impose such laws and is the very reason they are elected - to allow us to co-exist in peace. One of my last couple of posts gives a fuller explanation. NorthernGent

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:17:22 PM)
Give me an example of a freedom of expression that should be curbed by a government. Because surely the vague phrase "government" covers everyone from Thatcher to Wilson. I honestly think your idea of limiting freedom of expression translates to "ban the things I don't approve of"

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:20:56 PM)
Alumbrado, Not sure if your last post is aimed at me. If it is you have misread me - I never said the cartoons mean 'Everyone should go out and kill a Muslim' and I never said 'the cartoons were aimed at inciting violence against Muslims'. Apologies if it's not aimed at me. NorthernGent

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 1:31:41 PM)
English, Not this 'I honestly think' nonsense again. Instead of honestly thinking read what I'm saying - that is, the Government imposes laws against speech that can be defined as incitement (nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally approve or disapprove). There are good reasons for this - mainly that the duty of Government is to create the conditions that allow us to co-exist in peace. These are principles that form the bedrock of thousand of years of Government - nothing to do with my personal opinion. What do you mean Thatcher to Wilson? It's not about personalities - it's about the principles of Government - we are talking about the concept of Government from year dot to the end and the four corners of the globe. As for an example of expression that should be curbed - the cartoons are a very good example as they were intended to stoke up the fires of racial tension. That is not allowing us to co-exist in peace. NorthernGent

Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 2:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Alumbrado, Not sure if your last post is aimed at me. If it is you have misread me - I never said the cartoons mean 'Everyone should go out and kill a Muslim' and I never said 'the cartoons were aimed at inciting violence against Muslims'. Apologies if it's not aimed at me. NorthernGent It wasn't, and no apologies needed.

LadyEllen -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 2:29:26 PM)
Hi English In response to your question - the only curbs that should be placed on freedom of expression by government are where the results of free expression could be detrimental to the national interest or where such expression would or might result in causing civil unrest between people within the country. For the former we have the Official Secrets Act (ridiculously overused), for the latter we have laws about incitement. No one surely, can argue that either of these curbs are bad things in themselves - but they can be used for evil depending on for what intention they are applied - this is the value of freedom of expression and representative democracy to scrutinise what our leaders do and for what reason, and if necessary to remove those leaders and cause change peaceably. It isnt the role of government to civilise us - it is the role of government to set, delete and amend the law in accordance with the model which the majority feel will bring about the best society and to operate those laws. Where things go wrong is with the poor or absent execution of the will of the majority as decided at the ballot, or with an execution of the authorised role of government which exceeds or is opposite to their mandate, or when a government does not fulfil its purpose in the interests of the whole electorate. This last is one of the difficult things about government - one is elected by one's supporters, but afterwards one must represent the best interests of one's detracters too - thus one ends up pleasing no one, attracts growing dissent and is eventually removed by way of freedom of expression. E

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 3:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent English, Not this 'I honestly think' nonsense again. Instead of honestly thinking read what I'm saying - that is, the Government imposes laws against speech that can be defined as incitement (nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally approve or disapprove). There are good reasons for this - mainly that the duty of Government is to create the conditions that allow us to co-exist in peace. These are principles that form the bedrock of thousand of years of Government - nothing to do with my personal opinion. What do you mean Thatcher to Wilson? It's not about personalities - it's about the principles of Government - we are talking about the concept of Government from year dot to the end and the four corners of the globe. As for an example of expression that should be curbed - the cartoons are a very good example as they were intended to stoke up the fires of racial tension. That is not allowing us to co-exist in peace. NorthernGent So do you also believe that Muslim demonstrations in London, which could lead to violence from the right, should also be banned? Or are you selectively curbing freedoms based on your own politics?

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 3:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Hi English In response to your question - the only curbs that should be placed on freedom of expression by government are where the results of free expression could be detrimental to the national interest or where such expression would or might result in causing civil unrest between people within the country. For the former we have the Official Secrets Act (ridiculously overused), for the latter we have laws about incitement. No one surely, can argue that either of these curbs are bad things in themselves - but they can be used for evil depending on for what intention they are applied - this is the value of freedom of expression and representative democracy to scrutinise what our leaders do and for what reason, and if necessary to remove those leaders and cause change peaceably. It isnt the role of government to civilise us - it is the role of government to set, delete and amend the law in accordance with the model which the majority feel will bring about the best society and to operate those laws. Where things go wrong is with the poor or absent execution of the will of the majority as decided at the ballot, or with an execution of the authorised role of government which exceeds or is opposite to their mandate, or when a government does not fulfil its purpose in the interests of the whole electorate. This last is one of the difficult things about government - one is elected by one's supporters, but afterwards one must represent the best interests of one's detracters too - thus one ends up pleasing no one, attracts growing dissent and is eventually removed by way of freedom of expression. E Excuse me if I interpreted this wrongly but aren't you saying that everything we need regarding curbs on freedom of expression are already in place?

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 3:06:54 PM)
If a government limits my freedom of speach they will have to cut my tongue out first. To agree to principles of good governance is giving any government a get out of jail free card. Principles are for the practitioners. There is only one way to apply good governance and that is the ability of the people to kick a government out of power. Agreeing to limits on freedom of speach is the thin end of the wedge. Governments are full of lawyers that manipulate language and law to their own ends. There is only one principle to freedom of speach and that is total freedom of speach and for individuals to take the consequences of their fellow citizens if they practice the extremes of that freedom.

LadyEllen -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 3:18:05 PM)
Hi English (yes, me again!) The police are responsible for public safety and for enforcing the law, and they usually have the final word over whether a demonstration takes place or not. I work part time as an adviser for them and I know that they take the banning of any "demo" very seriously and on a case by case basis. They do not work on the basis of what the demo is for or against when reaching a decision, but on the basis of the risk of serious public unrest should it go ahead or be banned. In the example you mentioned, there would likely be confrontation with the far right its true. However in such instances the Muslim demo would normally go ahead, and the police would do their best to prevent the far right from reaching the area of the demo. If they succeeded in reaching the demonstrators then the police would do their best to permit the demo to continue in order to allow free expression. Counter demonstrations are one of those areas of expression which have to be controlled in order that others may enjoy freedom of expression - if some disagree then they are welcome to hold their own demo after all. regards E

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/24/2006 3:30:24 PM)
Absolutely. The freedom to demonstrate can't be curbed just because there might be violence from a section of society. But apply the same principle to the publication of a cartoon. Should they not publish because there might be violence? From my own point of view, if you publish an inflammatory cartoon and violence follows, it's the ensuing violence that needs addressing, not the cartoon. You can address the wisdom of publishing the cartoon later but first and foremost, people have to be made aware that a free society will never tolerate the use of violence as a means of expressing outrage. The reason I say this by the way is because if you look at most people's thinking about the cartoon it would be "It was a stupid, unnecessary and insulting thing to publish that was bound to create needless tension". But once violent acts follow, that support is likely to give way to "ok, that violence is even more wrong".

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 5:09:42 AM)
English, Your quote: So do you also believe that Muslim demonstrations in London, which could lead to violence from the right, should also be banned? Or are you selectively curbing freedoms based on your own politics? Why would you jump to the conclusion I would selectively curb freedom of speech? I have never said that anywhere and in fact if you read closely I speak about principles of Government - no principle can be applied selectively due to the very meaning of the word principle. For the record, and you now have your wish of turning the debate to the attentions of the muslim community, all peaceful protest/debate that is not aimed at incitement of any race, religion, culture etc is legitimate. It is not the reaction of another group that is central to the debate. It is the intention and implied meaning of what is said. For example, if muslims protested against housing discrimination then that is legitimate - it may lead to violence from the right due to their extreme views but that doesn't mean it is not legitimate protest. There are blatantly issues of social justice and it is the right of citizen's to address this through protest. However, if the protest by Muslims was violent, aggressive and aimed at stirring up emotions then it is not legitimate and the police should step in to arrest them (as per the protest of 200 with placards in London). There's not many ways to say this so this will be a repeat. Any action that is aimed at incitement, carried out by any group of people is not legitimate and should be censored. Where we seem to be disagreeing is you seem to think it is ok to try and stir up racial tension - I don't agree and my opinion is there should be laws that prevent this sort of thing. NorthernGent

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125