Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

But in the effort to do something 'for' us would we be ignoring the potential repercussions 'against' us?

I'm all for making a collective stand against terrorism but as Marty said earlier if people want to rip the urine out of someone with impunity they have to accept the consequences. Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting the consequences are justified.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Frankly they will find an excuse to attack regardless. I honestly don't think a bunch of reprints of cartoons as a one-off will make much difference.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

Picking on some more unpleasant bits:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Then you are wrong ,that is not and never has been the purpose of free speech or a free press

oh i do apologise ,are we getting offended ,well guess what ,given your insistance on our right to free speech .......tough.... deal with it


and how will they feel if next week some more of their staff get shot .It's not solidarity it's stupid and completely unnecessary.

You are completely missing the point .you can of course criticise or mock a religion no one has ever said any different ,what you shouldn't do is deliberately set out to cause offence or insult especially knowing the likely outcome to people you are responsible for and your utter failure to understand that simple concept is what makes you and those with your attitude part of the problem.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

A one-off? I'd agree. A worldwide or nationwide reprint? That's a different story. Don't forget you (as a rational person) are trying to guess the actions of irrational people. That's not going to end well.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Well this is one take on free speech.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I can't stand Cox however he's right, any opinion can be ridiculed however it has to be remembered that ridicule can often cause a reaction and no matter how petty or unwarranted that reaction can be, the person doing the ridiculing is going to be responsible for their actions.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Here's an example. I really can't get my head around those pyjama-type striped trousers bodybuilders often wear in public. I think they look pretty stupid.

If I went up to some 20 stone bloke wearing them and made fun of him for wearing them should I complain if he smacks me out for it? He wouldn't be right in doing that however my making fun of his choice of clothing would be unlikely to get a smile and high-5 from him.

Should he get a sense of humour or be aware that wearing odd stuff like that opens him up to ridicule? Hell yes of course.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The last few pages of this thread in a nutshell :clap:

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The real point of free speech is that everyone is entitled to it..and they are all entitled to my defending their right to free speech.What they are not entitled to is me defending their right to use violence as a response.. but they have a right to respond using any other legal method and I'll defend that too.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

*Sigh* This is why I generally keep this guy on ignore...

Last set of responses, you can knock yourself out afterwards, I will not derail this thread further with disagreements of opinions it deals with way bigger issues.

Fortunately I didn't say that. I merely said that the free press and free speech should have the right to cause offence and to antagonise, not that it is their purpose. The purpose of Charlie Hebdo was to make people laugh through satire and given the number of staff they had they were obviously succeeding.

I am indeed somewhat offended by the comparison and have said I think it was low but at no time have or will I question your right to make it or react beyond to say what I already have.

I am very, very glad that many publications, both online and offline, disagreed with your attitude and reprinted some of the cartoons. It was important both in solidarity and in expressing that freedom of the press should not be cowed by threats of violence.

I will requote and deal in parts:

So apparently the free press, media, art, etc, must not set out to deliberately cause offence or insult. Gotcha, Chief. That leaves things pretty sterile given that there will be those who take offense or insult at pretty much anything.

Unsure if this applies just to religion but merely questioning a certain religion caused offence, so that pretty much leaves that one absolutely unquestionable, and makes any kind of critique impossible.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

So it seems also that by exercising the right, set down in law, to cause offence the media gets what they have coming.

In short the media in this vision have to steer clear of anything that may cause offence, distress, or insult, which in the case of the religion in question and a number of its followers is pretty much any criticism, questioning, or doubt regarding Mohammed and their holy texts, both because it shouldn't be done, full stop, and because the reaction may be violent.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

As far as I can see nobody has said the media shouldn't be printing anything along those lines. The message I'm getting from all this (and is my opinion) is if they do print satire and things ridiculing an emotive subject they have to be aware of possible (and of course totally unjustified) reprisals.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Quite.

Free speech can and does cause discomfort. This doesn't mean, contrary to one opinion on this thread, that anything that may cause discomfort shouldn't be permitted.

Fundamentally offence is not given, it is taken.

In turn how a person or group respond having taken offence is their decision. Everyone in the chain is responsible for their actions, everyone in the chain makes judgement calls.

If we start banning certain topics for fear of repercussions where do we stop? When we have nothing left that anyone could possibly take offence at?

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Sorry, Russ, but that's exactly what was said.

It was expanded on but either said poster has a poor grasp of the English language, given their use of a conjunction as the next word indicating a new clause, or they are saying exactly that:

Tough to do without deliberately setting out to cause offence or insult, don't you think?

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

I'm seeing a difference here. Criticising and mocking is one thing - as an example from earlier I do that about Brian Cox all the time. DI'm not going to deliberately try to offend him though, that's a different matter.

I'll be honest here in that I don't like Islam. If I knew a Muslim who was claiming to live within its teachings but on the weekends got drunk, gambles etc then I could (if I was so inclined) criticise or mock him for those failings.

What I wouldn't do is deliberately try to offend him just as I don't see any reason to deliberately offend anyone really. I don't really see the merit in a society that enjoys deliberately offending.

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The problem is, though, that again it's up to others whether they take offence, regardless of whether it was the stated intent.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

All the guy did was historical research and he received a bunch of threats and caused a whole bunch of offence.

If you prevent deliberate attempts to offend that's going to make society extremely sanitised. Half of our comedians are banned, Private Eye is gone, etc, etc.

I defer to Stephen Fry

I found a comment made about me earlier in this thread somewhat offensive - big deal.

Those who get offended by criticisms of their faith need to grow up. If their faith is that strong a cartoon shouldn't even bother them in the slightest. We shouldn't pander to such ridiculous contradictions, by doing so we encourage a whole new generation of offence-takers and in turn encourage them to find even more things offensive as it works so well in shutting down criticism.

I, personally, quite like being able to offend and to be offended, and indeed to have someone tell me to stop my whining :)

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

The whole point of this particular discussion is to determine how far free speech is allowed to go ,that is the bigger issue :rolleyes:

awesome

equally as many agree with my attitude ,indeed my attitude was influenced by those members of the media who did not feel the need to further antagonise and put their staff at risk or simply felt that publishing offensive material was not needed

There is a huge difference between deliberately offending everybody in a whole religion because they are in that religion and poking fun at a few extremists within that religion ,that is the point you faill to see

Re: Mass shooting in Paris
 

Again I agree entirely. However I stand by my point earlier that if someone does or says something deliberately designed to offend or ridicule they cannot claim repercussions (regardless of how petty or unwarranted) were unexpected especially when dealing with people known for being irrational or unreasonable.

Yeah someone once asked him did that apply when people make offensive comments about homosexuals. That, of course was 'different'.



Again I agree completely. But if you set out to offend someone, as reasonable as you are it would be unreasonable for you to not expect a reaction in some way.